An advocate remembered

October 9, 2009
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
IL reporter Rebecca Berfanger fills in for Jennifer Nelson with this post:

When Indiana Lawyer started to hear about the recent death of a prominent domestic violence victim’s advocate, comments about the attorney just kept coming from the legal community – even before we posted it as a Daily story yesterday.

Deborah K. Hepler, 56, perhaps best known for founding the Protective Order Pro Bono Project of Greater Indianapolis in 2000, died Oct. 5. She had suffered from breast cancer.

Deb was active in many non-profit organizations, sitting on the board of Indiana Legal Services, the Indiana Coalition Against Domestic Violence, the Domestic Violence Network of Greater Indianapolis, and Carmel Community Players.

A celebration of her life will be held at the Northside Knights of Columbus, 2100 E. 71st St., Indianapolis, Oct. 11 at 3:30 p.m.

U.S. District Judge Larry McKinney, along with family and friends, will share their memories. Friends and family have also been asked to wear purple or red, Deb’s favorite colors.

In lieu of flowers, the family has asked that donations be made to the Protective Order Pro Bono Project of Greater Indianapolis through the Indiana Coalition Against Domestic Violence, at (317) 917-3685.

Here are just a couple of the comments we received at Indiana Lawyer via e-mail in the last couple days:

“Deb's passion for pro bono work and the practice of law in general was infectious. As well as being a great attorney, Deb was a loving friend and mentor. She touched the lives of so many and will continue to do so through the legacy she has created,” said Indianapolis attorney and former coworker Amy S. Wilson.

“It is with deep sadness that I report to you the passing of Deb Hepler this morning [Oct. 5]. As you know, Deb was a very active and passionate member of our board for many years. What you may not have known is that she was fighting breast cancer during this last year, while still putting tremendous energy into her work for the poor, and into Indiana Legal Services. Her passing is a loss to the entire legal services community, and our condolences go out to her family,” Paul A. Leonard Jr., president of the board of ILS, wrote to board members.

“Deb truly was a wonderful human being. She gave so much of herself to all of the worthy causes in which she was involved. Her enthusiasm and drive inspired many people to join her in giving of their time as well. She will be greatly missed by the community,” said Indianapolis attorney and former coworker Julia Blackwell Gelinas.

Because we don’t have room to publish every comment we’ve received about Deb and her contributions, if you would like to share your thoughts, we encourage you to post your comments here.
ADVERTISEMENT
  • Deb was an amazing woman. I had the priviledge of working with her to make her idea of the Protective Order Pro Bono Project a true reality, as its founding Executive Director. With the help and dedication of an amazing board, we met people; we talked of the project and it was easy---because her idea sold itself and still does today. Mentoring law students while assisting survivors as pro bon council--a unique idea and a one of a kind program then and even now.
    She was remarkably intuitive to survivors\' needs. She was a caring advocate, an phenomenal lawyer, an absolutely devoted mother, wife, sister and daughter, and a great friend. I will miss her (and even the 6:20 am phone calls with ideas), more than even I realize. This legal community will miss her even more than it realizes because she was one of the best its ever had. She was a star.

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
  1. The $320,000 is the amount the school spent in litigating two lawsuits: One to release the report involving John Trimble (as noted in the story above) and one defending the discrimination lawsuit. The story above does not mention the amount spent to defend the discrimination suit, that's why the numbers don't match. Thanks for reading.

  2. $160k? Yesterday the figure was $320k. Which is it Indiana Lawyer. And even more interesting, which well connected law firm got the (I am guessing) $320k, six time was the fired chancellor received. LOL. (From yesterday's story, which I guess we were expected to forget overnight ... "According to records obtained by the Journal & Courier, Purdue spent $161,812, beginning in July 2012, in a state open records lawsuit and $168,312, beginning in April 2013, for defense in a federal lawsuit. Much of those fees were spent battling court orders to release an independent investigation by attorney John Trimble that found Purdue could have handled the forced retirement better")

  3. The numbers are harsh; 66 - 24 in the House, 40 - 10 in the Senate. And it is an idea pushed by the Democrats. Dead end? Ummm not necessarily. Just need to go big rather than go home. Nuclear option. Give it to the federal courts, the federal courts will ram this down our throats. Like that other invented right of the modern age, feticide. Rights too precious to be held up by 2000 years of civilization hang in the balance. Onward!

  4. I'm currently seeing someone who has a charge of child pornography possession, he didn't know he had it because it was attached to a music video file he downloaded when he was 19/20 yrs old and fought it for years until he couldn't handle it and plead guilty of possession. He's been convicted in Illinois and now lives in Indiana. Wouldn't it be better to give them a chance to prove to the community and their families that they pose no threat? He's so young and now because he was being a kid and downloaded music at a younger age, he has to pay for it the rest of his life? It's unfair, he can't live a normal life, and has to live in fear of what people can say and do to him because of something that happened 10 years ago? No one deserves that, and no one deserves to be labeled for one mistake, he got labeled even though there was no intent to obtain and use the said content. It makes me so sad to see someone I love go through this and it makes me holds me back a lot because I don't know how people around me will accept him...second chances should be given to those under the age of 21 at least so they can be given a chance to live a normal life as a productive member of society.

  5. It's just an ill considered remark. The Sup Ct is inherently political, as it is a core part of government, and Marbury V Madison guaranteed that it would become ever more so Supremely thus. So her remark is meaningless and she just should have not made it.... what she could have said is that Congress is a bunch of lazys and cowards who wont do their jobs so the hard work of making laws clear, oftentimes stops with the Sups sorting things out that could have been resolved by more competent legislation. That would have been a more worthwhile remark and maybe would have had some relevance to what voters do, since voters cant affect who gets appointed to the supremely un-democratic art III courts.

ADVERTISEMENT