$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. KUDOS to the Indiana Supreme Court for realizing that some bureacracies need to go to the stake. Recall what RWR said: "No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size. Government programs, once launched, never disappear. Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we'll ever see on this earth!" NOW ... what next to this rare and inspiring chopping block? Well, the Commission on Gender and Race (but not religion!?!) is way overdue. And some other Board's could be cut with a positive for State and the reputation of the Indiana judiciary.

    2. During a visit where an informant with police wears audio and video, does the video necessary have to show hand to hand transaction of money and narcotics?

    3. I will agree with that as soon as law schools stop lying to prospective students about salaries and employment opportunities in the legal profession. There is no defense to the fraudulent numbers first year salaries they post to mislead people into going to law school.

    4. The sad thing is that no fish were thrown overboard The "greenhorn" who had never fished before those 5 days was interrogated for over 4 hours by 5 officers until his statement was illicited, "I don't want to go to prison....." The truth is that these fish were measured frozen off shore and thawed on shore. The FWC (state) officer did not know fish shrink, so the only reason that these fish could be bigger was a swap. There is no difference between a 19 1/2 fish or 19 3/4 fish, short fish is short fish, the ticket was written. In addition the FWC officer testified at trial, he does not measure fish in accordance with federal law. There was a document prepared by the FWC expert that said yes, fish shrink and if these had been measured correctly they averaged over 20 inches (offshore frozen). This was a smoke and mirror prosecution.

    5. I love this, Dave! Many congrats to you! We've come a long way from studying for the bar together! :)

    ADVERTISEMENT