ILNews

IBF announces pro bono award winners

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Ralph Adams, the former staff attorney and director of Legal Services of Maumee Valley, will receive this year’s Randall T. Shepard Award for excellence in pro bono service. He, along with other recipients of pro bono awards, will be honored at the Shepard Award Dinner in October.

Adams, of Fort Wayne, spent 38 years with Legal Services of Maumee Valley, which shut its doors nearly two years ago because of a lack of funding. Adams is the most prolific pro bono attorney with the Volunteer Lawyer Program of Northeast Indiana. From January to July this year, he has been active in 140 new cases and has never turned down a VLP referral. He also spearheaded the program’s efforts to create a “hotline” approach to serve clients within hours of initial inquiries.

The Indiana Pro Bono Commission will present the award to Adams, which is named in honor of Chief Justice Randall T. Shepard’s vision and leadership in pro bono in Indiana.

The Indiana Bar Foundation will recognize several others at the dinner for their pro bono efforts. Wendy Clar, Jean M. Blanton, Jennifer A. Elston, and Baker & Daniels will receive the Pro Bono Publico Award.

Clar, of Carmel, is being honored for her dedication to help those who may otherwise go unrepresented. She has represented more pro bono clients in Hamilton County than any other volunteer attorney with the Heartland Pro Bono Council. Blanton and Elston, both from Evansville, are being honored for their co-counsel efforts on two pro bono family law appeals through the Volunteer Lawyer Program of Southwest Indiana Inc. Baker & Daniels is being honored for its work with the Wishard Medical-Legal Partnership.

Baker & Daniels, along with Eli Lily and Co., will also be honored with a Law-Related Education Award for its Street Law Corporate Diversity Pipeline Education Project. The Indiana Supreme Court’s “Courts in the Classroom” will also receive a Law-Related Education Award for its project, “My Place is in the Voting Booth: Hoosier Suffragette Helen M. Gougar.”

The awards will be presented at the annual dinner Oct. 15 at the Marriott in downtown Indianapolis. Dinner reservations are $60 and can be made at www.inbf.org or at (317) 269-2415.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

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 wonder if the USSR had electronic voting machines that changed the ballot after it was cast? Oh well, at least we have a free media serving as vicious watchdog and exposing all of the rot in the system! (Insert rimshot)

  2. Jose, you are assuming those in power do not wish to be totalitarian. My experience has convinced me otherwise. Constitutionalists are nearly as rare as hens teeth among the powerbrokers "managing" us for The Glorious State. Oh, and your point is dead on, el correcta mundo. Keep the Founders’ (1791 & 1851) vision alive, my friend, even if most all others, and especially the ruling junta, chase only power and money (i.e. mammon)

  3. Hypocrisy in high places, absolute immunity handed out like Halloween treats (it is the stuff of which tyranny is made) and the belief that government agents are above the constitutions and cannot be held responsible for mere citizen is killing, perhaps has killed, The Republic. And yet those same power drunk statists just reel on down the hallway toward bureaucratic fascism.

  4. Well, I agree with you that the people need to wake up and see what our judges and politicians have done to our rights and freedoms. This DNA loophole in the statute of limitations is clearly unconstitutional. Why should dna evidence be treated different than video tape evidence for example. So if you commit a crime and they catch you on tape or if you confess or leave prints behind: they only have five years to bring their case. However, if dna identifies someone they can still bring a case even fifty-years later. where is the common sense and reason. Members of congress are corrupt fools. They should all be kicked out of office and replaced by people who respect the constitution.

  5. If the AG could pick and choose which state statutes he defended from Constitutional challenge, wouldn't that make him more powerful than the Guv and General Assembly? In other words, the AG should have no choice in defending laws. He should defend all of them. If its a bad law, blame the General Assembly who presumably passed it with a majority (not the government lawyer). Also, why has there been no write up on the actual legislators who passed the law defining marriage? For all the fuss Democrats have made, it would be interesting to know if some Democrats voted in favor of it (or if some Republican's voted against it). Have a nice day.

ADVERTISEMENT