ILNews

IBA: Volunteer for the Health and Human Rights Clinic at the Indiana University Robert H. McKinney School of Law

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Health & Human Rights Clinic at the Indiana University Robert H. McKinney School of Law (“HHRC”), with the support of a $35,000 grant from the Indianapolis Bar Foundation (“IBF”), is launching a first-of-its-kind initiative to team local attorneys with clinical faculty in providing pro bono representation to low-income clients in the Indianapolis community. Based on the medical-legal partnership model, the HHRC represents the legal needs of patients from low income and ethnically diverse communities throughout the Indianapolis area. Volunteer attorneys will work with HHRC clinical faculty to identify and address the legal issues that negatively impact health, including access to safe and affordable housing; access to public benefits, including medical coverage; protection from domestic violence; consumer matters; and children’s access to special education services. The key advantages to this community-based partnership are the opportunities for volunteer attorneys to receive training, peer guidance, and access to families in need of assistance before their problems reach the crisis stage. These advantages are particularly helpful to volunteer attorneys who may be unfamiliar with the needs of low-income families. Thus, the HHRC will employ a dynamic model of legal services delivery to engage in “preventative lawyering,” an impactful and cost-effective form of legal intervention that helps to prevent homelessness, hunger, and health emergencies. With your help, the HHRC hopes to provide direct legal services to over 150 indigent individuals with health-related legal issues in 2012.

To participate, volunteers will attend a free, full-day procedural and substantive training in housing, consumer, and public benefits law. The first training session will be held on Friday, February 24, 2012, from 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., at the Indiana University Robert H. McKinney School of Law. An application for CLE credit is pending in anticipation of offering 6.0 hours of free CLE credit to all attendees who agree to accept at least two pro bono cases. Once a volunteer participates in the training, they will be guided and supported by experienced poverty law attorneys in the representation of clients. If you are interested in attending the training, or obtaining additional information about the HHRC, please RSVP by calling (317) 278-0202, or sending an e-mail to gsmallwo@iupui.edu.

The HHRC is made possible in part by the generous support of the IBF 2011 Impact Fund Grant of $35,000. The IBF Impact Fund began in 2011, as a new vehicle to maximize the financial generosity of IBF donors, and to provide members of the Indianapolis Bar Association (“IndyBar”) with compelling opportunities to donate their time through pro bono services. In the past, the IBF awarded many smaller grants to numerous organizations in any given year.

In 2011, the IBF sought to change its philanthropic model by awarding a single, substantial grant to a non-profit organization that would affect a significant positive impact in central Indiana through the promotion of access to justice for indigent persons.

Among other things, the HHRC fulfilled the grant criteria by presenting an opportunity for IndyBar members to support the initiative through volunteerism, and significantly enhancing the visibility and image of Indianapolis attorneys in the broader community. Please consider supporting the HHRC by attending the February 24, 2012, training and representing clients on a pro bono basis.•

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. Just an aside, but regardless of the outcome, I 'm proud of Judge William Hughes. He was the original magistrate on the Home place issue. He ruled for Home Place, and was primaried by Brainard for it. Their tool Poindexter failed to unseat Hughes, who won support for his honesty and courage throughout the county, and he was reelected Judge of Hamilton County's Superior Court. You can still stand for something and survive. Thanks, Judge Hughes!

  2. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  3. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  4. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  5. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

ADVERTISEMENT