$25,000 donated to LRAP

January 10, 2011
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Reporter Rebecca Berfanger contributed this post.

At its annual dinner in mid-October, Indiana Bar Foundation representatives described a continued need for funding to have a sustainable loan repayment assistance program. That program was first established by the IBF in 2006.

The challenge was extended to IBF supporters in the room Oct. 15 to give to the Richard M. Givan Loan Repayment Assistance Program, named for the late former chief justice of the Indiana Supreme Court.

On Jan. 7, the IBF announced that South Bend attorney Timothy Abeska of Barnes & Thornburg had donated $25,000 to the Givan LRAP and that his gift would be doubled by a matching program of the Indiana Supreme Court.

“This is one way I can help Hoosiers in need to ensure they have equal access to the law,” Abeska said in a statement from IBF. “I hope the announcement of this gift will encourage other attorneys or law firms to support this program, which will impact the lives of many of our less fortunate citizens.”

The Supreme Court, which has already given $25,000 to the fund, has offered to match funds up to $175,000 that are donated by Nov. 1, 2011. The funds would then help attorneys who make less than $50,000 per year in public service positions to pay back some of their law school loans.

“We hope Tim’s generous leadership gift will inspire other attorneys to match his giving and propel this campaign forward,” Chuck Dunlap, IBF executive director, said in a statement.

To contribute to the Givan LRAP, contact the IBF at (317) 269-2415 or visit the program’s website.
 

ADVERTISEMENT
  • Another Idea
    I have a better idea. Why not get involved early on BEFORE the student amasses a huge debt he or she will struggle to ever repay. The fact is the job market is saturated. We don't need to be encouraging people to go to law schools considering the poor salaries and employment prospects these people will be facing.
    • They are employed
      Paul, Let me clarify a point... attorneys who receive these grants ARE employed in legal aid or pro bono organizations at reduced salaries.

      From the web site: "for law school graduates employed in non-profit organizations dedicated to serving the civil legal needs of low-income individuals and families in Indiana" http://www.inbf.org/grants_lrap

    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. Major social engineering imposed by judicial order well in advance of democratic change, has been the story of the whole post ww2 period. Contraception, desegregation, abortion, gay marriage: all rammed down the throats of Americans who didn't vote to change existing laws on any such thing, by the unelected lifetime tenure Supreme court heirarchs. Maybe people came to accept those things once imposed upon them, but, that's accommodation not acceptance; and surely not democracy. So let's quit lying to the kids telling them this is a democracy. Some sort of oligarchy, but no democracy that's for sure, and it never was. A bourgeois republic from day one.

    2. JD Massur, yes, brings to mind a similar stand at a Texas Mission in 1836. Or Vladivostok in 1918. As you seemingly gloat, to the victors go the spoils ... let the looting begin, right?

    3. I always wondered why high fence deer hunting was frowned upon? I guess you need to keep the population steady. If you don't, no one can enjoy hunting! Thanks for the post! Fence

    4. Whether you support "gay marriage" or not is not the issue. The issue is whether the SCOTUS can extract from an unmentionable somewhere the notion that the Constitution forbids government "interference" in the "right" to marry. Just imagine time-traveling to Philadelphia in 1787. Ask James Madison if the document he and his fellows just wrote allowed him- or forbade government to "interfere" with- his "right" to marry George Washington? He would have immediately- and justly- summoned the Sergeant-at-Arms to throw your sorry self out into the street. Far from being a day of liberation, this is a day of capitulation by the Rule of Law to the Rule of What's Happening Now.

    5. With today's ruling, AG Zoeller's arguments in the cases of Obamacare and Same-sex Marriage can be relegated to the ash heap of history. 0-fer

    ADVERTISEMENT