ILNews

IBA Frontlines

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Ask a Lawyer Volunteers Needed

Attorneys are needed to assist the public with legal guidance during the Fall 2010 Ask A Lawyer program on Tuesday, October 12. Volunteers are being sought for for one of two shifts, 2 to 4 p.m. or 4 to 6 p.m., at the program’s Brightwood, East Washington, East 38th Street and Shelby library locations. To volunteer, contact Caren Chopp at cchopp@indybar.org or call her at 269-2000.

Need to Prep for MPRE?

Don’t miss the IndyBar’s MPRE Review Course on Friday, October 29. This course is open to both attorneys and students. Go to www.indybar.org to learn more or to register.

Get Great IU Football Discounts for Law Day!

Enjoy a day of football at Indiana University as the Hoosiers take on Arkansas State on October 16. This date will mark “Law Day” at Memorial Stadium, and IndyBar members can snag great discounts on adult and youth tickets for this game. Look elsewhere in this issue for an order form or log on to www.indybar.org. Ticket requests must be made by October 8.

Pro Bono Award Nominations Sought

Each year the Indianapolis Bar Association recognizes the extraordinary volunteer efforts of its members through the presentation of Pro Bono Awards. Nominations are currently being accepted for this year’s awards. The Pro Bono Award will be presented at the Recognition Luncheon on Wednesday, November 10 at The Conrad Hotel. The award recipient needs to be a member of the IBA, and you are encouraged to consider actively practicing lawyers, retired lawyers, in-house and corporate counsel, law firms, law students and paralegals who have made outstanding contributions toward delivering volunteer legal services to the poor and disadvantaged. All IBA members, in the various facets of the legal profession, can be considered for the award. The deadline for nominations is Wednesday, October 13. Nominations or questions about the award can be directed to Caren Chopp at cchopp@indybar.org.

Solo and Small Firm Practitioners: This Program is for You!

Through the upcoming Surviving and Thriving program on Friday, October 8, the IndyBar’s Solo/Small Firm Section and Professionalism Committee are proud to provide solo and small firm practitioners—whether newly graduated, seasoned pros or those transitioning to the solo/small firm world—with the tools, information and connections to not only survive, but thrive in the practice of law. In just one day you’ll get practical advice, answers to questions and important tips on how to build a successful business. Relevant programming combined with respected local speakers make Surviving and Thriving an essential and cost effective program for all solo and small firm practitioners. 6.0 hours of CLE credit are available in the full day program. To view the agenda and to access online registration go to indybar.org!•

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
2015 Distinguished Barrister &
Up and Coming Lawyer Reception

Tuesday, May 5, 2015 • 4:30 - 7:00 pm
Learn More


ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  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