ILNews

IBA Frontlines - 11/9/12

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Carr Appointed to U.S. Bankruptcy Court Bench

IndyBar member Jim Carr has been appointed to a 14-year term as U.S. Bankruptcy Judge in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana. His appointment, made by Chief Judge Frank H. Easterbrook of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, will become effective on January 1, 2013. Carr will join fellow IndyBar member and recent addition to the court Judge Robyn Moberly, who joined the bench on November 1 following the retirement of Judge Tony Metz.

Volunteers Needed for Naturalization Ceremonies

Courtroom connotations: stress, contention and opposition. Let the IndyBar change that for you—participate in a warm, wonderful Naturalization Ceremony. Twice a month, the IndyBar sends representatives to the Naturalization Ceremonies to give welcoming words to the new citizens. Ceremonies are held in the Federal Courthouse, last about an hour and are held on Thursday mornings. For more information and to volunteer, contact Caren Chopp at cchopp@indybar.org.

Training Sessions Offered for Pro Bono Volunteers

The Neighborhood Christian Legal Clinic, in partnership with the Indianapolis Bar Association, Barnes & Thornburg LLP and Ice Miller LLP, is offering two upcoming continuing legal education classes. All sessions are offered for free to those who agree to accept a pro bono case referral from the clinic. “Immigration Law: Understanding the Legal Needs of Vulnerable Populations” will be held on Friday, November 30 from 8:20 a.m. to 4 p.m. at Ice Miller LLP. “Understanding Family Law: Domestic Violence Victims & the Poverty Population” will be held on Monday, December 10 from 8:20 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. at Barnes & Thornburg LLP. Visit www.nclegalclinic.org for more information and registration.

I’m a New Lawyer ...Now What?

Calling all new admittees! Don’t miss the IndyBar’s upcoming New Admittee Roundtable and Reception on November 14 from 4 to 7 p.m. This program, offered at no-cost for all 2012 new admittees to the Indiana Bar, will shed light on the things new lawyers need to know that WEREN’T taught in law school. From CLE credits to tips on that first court appearance, attendees will come away with knowledge that will help to build confidence and promote success as a new lawyer. The roundtable portion of the program, which will run from 4 to 5 p.m., will be followed by an informal cocktail reception to allow for networking and mingling with fellow new admittees and presenters. Access additional information and online registration at www.indybar.org.

Ask a Lawyer Assists a Record 578 Hoosiers

The final numbers are in, and the IndyBar’s Fall 2012 Ask a Lawyer program on Tuesday, October 9 succeeded in assisting 578 Hoosiers, a record for the program. Ninety-nine IndyBar attorneys and paralegals participated in this free legal advice program that enables area residents to speak face-to-face with attorneys at no cost. Volunteers were stationed throughout the city at Indianapolis Marion County Public Library branches, with additional attorneys manning phone lines at the IndyBar office. Thank you to the many volunteers, the Pro Bono Standing Committee, the support of Indianapolis Marion County Public Libraries and a generous grant from the Indianapolis Bar Foundation for making this valuable program a possibility.

The IndyBar Legal Directory is Here!

Pre-ordered legal directories are available for pickup at the IndyBar office during normal business hours (Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.). Forget to order your copy? Go to www.indybar.org/store to place your order today. Directories are $55 plus tax and shipping, if applicable.•

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
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