$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. Video pen? Nice work, "JW"! Let this be a lesson and a caution to all disgruntled ex-spouses (or soon-to-be ex-spouses) . . . you may think that altercation is going to get you some satisfaction . . . it will not.

    2. First comment on this thread is a fitting final comment on this thread, as that the MCBA never answered Duncan's fine question, and now even Eric Holder agrees that the MCBA was in material error as to the facts: "I don't get it" from Duncan December 1, 2014 5:10 PM "The Grand Jury met for 25 days and heard 70 hours of testimony according to this article and they made a decision that no crime occurred. On what basis does the MCBA conclude that their decision was "unjust"? What special knowledge or evidence does the MCBA have that the Grand Jury hearing this matter was unaware of? The system that we as lawyers are sworn to uphold made a decision that there was insufficient proof that officer committed a crime. How can any of us say we know better what was right than the jury that actually heard all of the the evidence in this case."

    3. wow is this a bunch of bs! i know the facts!

    4. MCBA .... time for a new release about your entire membership (or is it just the alter ego) being "saddened and disappointed" in the failure to lynch a police officer protecting himself in the line of duty. But this time against Eric Holder and the Federal Bureau of Investigation: "WASHINGTON — Justice Department lawyers will recommend that no civil rights charges be brought against the police officer who fatally shot an unarmed teenager in Ferguson, Mo., after an F.B.I. investigation found no evidence to support charges, law enforcement officials said Wednesday." http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/22/us/justice-department-ferguson-civil-rights-darren-wilson.html?ref=us&_r=0

    5. Dr wail asfour lives 3 hours from the hospital,where if he gets an emergency at least he needs three hours,while even if he is on call he should be in a location where it gives him max 10 minutes to be beside the patient,they get paid double on their on call days ,where look how they handle it,so if the death of the patient occurs on weekend and these doctors still repeat same pattern such issue should be raised,they should be closer to the patient.on other hand if all the death occured on the absence of the Dr and the nurses handle it,the nurses should get trained how to function appearntly they not that good,if the Dr lives 3 hours far from the hospital on his call days he should sleep in the hospital

    ADVERTISEMENT