$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. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

    2. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

    3. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

    4. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

    5. Seventh Circuit Court Judge Diane Wood has stated in “The Rule of Law in Times of Stress” (2003), “that neither laws nor the procedures used to create or implement them should be secret; and . . . the laws must not be arbitrary.” According to the American Bar Association, Wood’s quote drives home this point: The rule of law also requires that people can expect predictable results from the legal system; this is what Judge Wood implies when she says that “the laws must not be arbitrary.” Predictable results mean that people who act in the same way can expect the law to treat them in the same way. If similar actions do not produce similar legal outcomes, people cannot use the law to guide their actions, and a “rule of law” does not exist.

    ADVERTISEMENT