Dinner recognizes challenges of economy, praises efforts of community

October 18, 2010
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

IL reporter Rebecca Berfanger wrote this blog post.

The 2010 Randall T. Shepard Award Dinner, an annual event to recognize pro bono efforts of the Indiana bar, went off without a hitch on Oct. 15. If anything, it was probably one of the most efficient awards events I’ve been to, but that didn’t make it any less emotional for those in attendance.

Justice Brent E. Dickson started the awards presentation by discussing the importance of pro bono to the legal community. He said the way the districts approach these cases is “exceptional” and said the Indiana Pro Bono Commission had “kept pace with the times,” including innovative ways of handling issues that weren’t as big of a deal when the commission started, such as mortgage foreclosures.

“Kudos to you all for accomplishing what many would think is impossible,” he said, referring to the low interest rates that have led to low amounts of funds from Interest on Lawyer Trust Accounts. On Friday, it was also announced to the pro bono district plan administrators that the Indiana Bar Foundation would allocate $427,000 from IOLTA revenues, in addition to $175,000 from the reserve fund – and a possible allocation of some or all of the additional $100,000 Indiana Continuing Legal Education Forum gave to the IBF on Friday. Even if all $100,000 went to the pro bono districts, that would still leave a shortfall of $75,000.

To compare to past years: IOLTA income as of mid-2008 – part of which was distributed for use for 2009 budgets – was $3 million; the IOLTA income as of mid-2009, part of which was distributed for use for 2010 budgets, was $1.5 million; and the revenue as of the end of June 2010 was $670,000 – part of which will be distributed for use for 2011 budgets.

But even with smaller budgets, the districts still need to achieve the goals they had a few years ago, “with your hands and feet tied behind your back,” Justice Dickson said.

He also applauded the IBF’s Justice Richard M. Givan Loan Repayment Assistance Program for attorneys in public interest positions, as well as a matching gift program for donations given to the LRAP fund before Nov. 1, 2011, giving attorneys a year to contribute.

He ended his section of the evening by reciting part of the oath all new attorneys take: “I will never reject, from any consideration personal to myself, the cause of the defenseless, the oppressed or those who cannot afford adequate legal assistance; so help me God.”

IBF president and Muncie attorney Bob Beasley then spoke about the importance of pro bono, including how he hoped “in the not too distant future that this or other events that celebrate pro bono will attract the largest crowds” of any other event in the legal community.

He added that when attorneys retired and look back at their careers, it will likely be the pro bono cases they took on that they’ll be the most proud of, and what they enjoyed most. Like Justice Dickson, Beasley also explained the importance of the IBF’s LRAP efforts for attorneys who want to do public interest law.

He then recognized Carmel attorney Wendy Clar, who had represented 10 family law cases in 2009, and already nine cases in 2010, through the Heartland Pro Bono District (District 8); Jean Blanton and Jennifer Elston of Evansville, who’ve been working on appeals pro bono for family law cases through District 13 in southwestern Indiana; Baker & Daniels and Wishard Health Services, both in Indianapolis, for their Medical-Legal Partnership; the Indiana Supreme Court’s Courts in the Classroom project about Indiana suffragette Helen M. Gougar; and Baker & Daniels and Eli Lilly and Company’s Street Law Corporate Legal Diversity Pipeline Program.

Indiana Court of Appeals Judge Melissa May then recognized Ralph S. Adams of Fort Wayne with the Randall T. Shepard Award. Adams was at Legal Services of Maumee Valley until 2008, and continues to work with the Volunteer Lawyer Program of Northeast Indiana, Inc. (District 3). In his first year of retirement, he donated nearly 400 hours to help 144 clients. He has also started a hotline on a dedicated cell phone, so if he gets a call, he can respond quickly.

After the awards, most people were ready to head home, but I was able to speak with a few of my regular sources about what they’ve been up to and what I will hopefully be able to soon share with readers about new and ongoing pro bono efforts in Indiana.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

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