ILNews

IBA: Giving Thanks: Pay it forward by offering your expertise

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Since 2007, attorney volunteers have assisted hundreds of individuals prepare for times when they can no longer speak for themselves through the Low Asset Wills program. For IndyBar volunteers it is easy: clients are pre-screened and template forms are provided.

Consider volunteering a small piece of your time for this program during the first quarter of 2013. The time commitment is minimal, but your impact is great. Feedback shows that each client commitment averages three to five hours.

This year the Pro Bono Standing Committee has expanded the program to include a Modest Means income-qualification level. Volunteers can choose: take only clients qualified to have their documents drafted pro bono, or agree to hold a complimentary consultation and charge no more than $75/hour for a modest means client while also taking one pro bono client as well.

Please contact Caren Chopp at cchopp@indybar.org or 269-2000 if you are interested in participating or have questions. Specialized training will not be provided but we may be able to pair you with a mentor. If you plan to participate in this program, be sure to renew your IndyBar membership for 2013 as all volunteers must be current IndyBar members.•

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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. As one of the many consumers affected by this breach, I found my bank data had been lifted and used to buy over $200 of various merchandise in New York. I did a pretty good job of tracing the purchases to stores around a college campus just from the info on my bank statement. Hm. Mr. Hill, I would like my $200 back! It doesn't belong to the state, in my opinion. Give it back to the consumers affected. I had to freeze my credit and take out data protection, order a new debit card and wait until it arrived. I deserve something for my trouble!

  2. Don't we have bigger issues to concern ourselves with?

  3. Anyone who takes the time to study disciplinary and bar admission cases in Indiana ... much of which is, as a matter of course and by intent, off the record, would have a very difficult time drawing lines that did not take into account things which are not supposed to matter, such as affiliations, associations, associates and the like. Justice Hoosier style is a far departure than what issues in most other parts of North America. (More like Central America, in fact.) See, e.g., http://www.theindianalawyer.com/indiana-attorney-illegally-practicing-in-florida-suspended-for-18-months/PARAMS/article/42200 When while the Indiana court system end the cruel practice of killing prophets of due process and those advocating for blind justice?

  4. Wouldn't this call for an investigation of Government corruption? Chief Justice Loretta Rush, wrote that the case warranted the high court’s review because the method the Indiana Court of Appeals used to reach its decision was “a significant departure from the law.” Specifically, David wrote that the appellate panel ruled after reweighing of the evidence, which is NOT permissible at the appellate level. **But yet, they look the other way while an innocent child was taken by a loving mother who did nothing wrong"

  5. Different rules for different folks....

ADVERTISEMENT