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. 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