ILNews

IBA: IndyBar Paralegals Donate 3,552 Stuffed Animals to Bears on Patrol

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

More than 3,500 stuffed animals were collected in the 2010 Teddy Bear Challenge, an annual collection effort spearheaded by the IndyBar Paralegal Executive Committee. The stuffed animals are donated to the “Bears on Patrol” program of the Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department, the Indianapolis Fire Department and the Marion County Sheriff’s Department.

According to www.indy.gov, “the Bears on Patrol program is designed to reduce the trauma suffered by children who are exposed to violence, abuse, or other upsetting incidents. Patrol officers are issued new, plush teddy bears that they carry with them while on patrol. As officers encounter children who are victims of traumatic incidents, they give bears to them. Officers report that the bears have been valuable to them in comforting upset children.”

The final tally for the 2010 Teddy Bear Challenge was 3,552 stuffed animals. Local law firms were encouraged to compete with one another in collecting donations for the program. Bose McKinney & Evans LLP won the award for most bears collected with 2,054 donated, while Frost Brown Todd LLC won the award for most bears per employee donated with 4.75 per employee.

The Teddy Bear Challenge, which began in early fall, culminated in the annual IndyBar Paralegal Holiday Luncheon, where the final tally and award winners were announced. Representatives from the IMPD, IFD and Sheriff’s Department, including Sheriff Elect John Layton, attended the luncheon and made remarks about the important role that the program plays in comforting children.•

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. Future generations will be amazed that we prosecuted people for possessing a harmless plant. The New York Times came out in favor of legalization in Saturday's edition of the newspaper.

  2. Well, maybe it's because they are unelected, and, they have a tendency to strike down laws by elected officials from all over the country. When you have been taught that "Democracy" is something almost sacred, then, you will have a tendency to frown on such imperious conduct. Lawyers get acculturated in law school into thinking that this is the very essence of high minded government, but to people who are more heavily than King George ever did, they may not like it. Thanks for the information.

  3. I pd for a bankruptcy years ago with Mr Stiles and just this week received a garnishment from my pay! He never filed it even though he told me he would! Don't let this guy practice law ever again!!!

  4. Excellent initiative on the part of the AG. Thankfully someone takes action against predators taking advantage of people who have already been through the wringer. Well done!

  5. Conour will never turn these funds over to his defrauded clients. He tearfully told the court, and his daughters dutifully pledged in interviews, that his first priority is to repay every dime of the money he stole from his clients. Judge Young bought it, much to the chagrin of Conour’s victims. Why would Conour need the $2,262 anyway? Taxpayers are now supporting him, paying for his housing, utilities, food, healthcare, and clothing. If Conour puts the money anywhere but in the restitution fund, he’s proved, once again, what a con artist he continues to be and that he has never had any intention of repaying his clients. Judge Young will be proven wrong... again; Conour has no remorse and the Judge is one of the many conned.

ADVERTISEMENT