ILNews

IBA: Foundation Closes Year by Presenting Scholarships

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Each year, the Indianapolis Bar Foundation presents scholarships to deserving law students, fulfilling its mission to advance justice and lead positive change in Indianapolis. Donations made by members and friends of our legal community have made this assistance possible.

The Indianapolis Bar Foundation is proud to announce the recipients of the 2010 Indianapolis Bar Foundation scholarships.

Rosalie F. Felton Scholarship, $1,500 – Established to honor the late, long-serving former Executive Director of the Indianapolis Bar Association and Foundation, the scholarship is awarded annually to an Indiana University School of Law-Indianapolis student who has achieved academic excellence and has a demonstrated financial need.

Awarded to James Smerbeck


Neil E. Shook Scholarship, $1,500 – Awarded to a law student attending the Indiana University School of Law-Indianapolis who has an interest in creditor’s rights and bankruptcy law, a commitment to excellence and exceptional leadership skills.

Awarded to Amanda Dalton, Indiana University School of Law-Indianapolis


Hon. William E. Steckler Scholarship, $1,500 – Named for the late Hon. William E. Steckler, U.S. District Court, Southern District of Indiana. The recipient shall be a second- or third-year law student who best exemplifies the traits of academic excellence and orientation toward public service.

Awarded to Sarah Benson, Indiana University School of Law-Indianapolis


IndyBar Review Scholarship, $600 – Provided to alleviate the financial burden of bar exam preparation those eligible have enrolled in the Indianapolis Bar Association’s IndyBar Review Course and have demonstrated financial need.

Awarded to Shannon White, Indiana University School of Law-Indianapolis •

ADVERTISEMENT

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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I need an experienced attorney to handle a breach of contract matter. Kindly respond for more details. Graham Young

  2. I thought the slurs were the least grave aspects of her misconduct, since they had nothing to do with her being on the bench. Why then do I suspect they were the focus? I find this a troubling trend. At least she was allowed to keep her law license.

  3. Section 6 of Article I of the Indiana Constitution is pretty clear and unequivocal: "Section 6. No money shall be drawn from the treasury for the benefit of any religious or theological institution."

  4. 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.

  5. 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."

ADVERTISEMENT