ILNews

IBA: Impact Fund Making Impact

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

In 2011, the Indianapolis Bar Foundation awarded its first Impact Fund grant, in the amount of $35,000, to the Health and Human Rights Clinic (HHRC) at the Indiana University Robert H. McKinney School of Law. The HHRC utilizes a medical-legal partnership to identify legal issues facing low-income clients who present seeking medical care. 26 attorneys attended the first full-day CLE and training hosted by the HHRC in February — an impressive turn­out for the initial training. Several volun­teers are already planning to participate in the next training later this year.

Dea Lott, the Clinical Adjunct Professor of Law & Director of Outreach for the HHRC, has been busy conducting ini­tial evaluations with prospective clients, performing conflict checks and assigning cases to volunteer attorneys. Several cases have already been assigned and many more assignments will be made.

“We are encouraged by this progress, and we are excited that your donations, through the Impact Fund, have made possible this training of volunteers who are now pro­viding pro bono legal services to clients in dire need of assistance, “ said Kelly Scanlan, Indianapolis Bar Foundation President and an attorney with Wilson Kehoe & Winingham. She added, “Later this year, we hope to share some specific examples of clients who were helped through your generosity.”

The Foundation is now in the process of reviewing applications for the 2012 Impact Fund Grant. 16 applica­tions were received. The Impact Fund Committee carefully reviewed and considered those applications, and has invited 5 of those applicants to present their grant proposals in person to the Committee and answer questions re­garding the proposals, which will take place on April 19, 2012.

A breakfast will be held on May 30, 2012, at which the 2012 Impact Fund grant recipient will be announced. A representative from the HHRC will also be invited to provide an update regarding use of the 2011 grant. Also at the May breakfast, those who ac­cept their nomination to become a mem­ber of the 2012 class of Distinguished Fellows will be honored.•

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. The practitioners and judges who hail E-filing as the Saviour of the West need to contain their respective excitements. E-filing is federal court requires the practitioner to cram his motion practice into pigeonholes created by IT people. Compound motions or those seeking alternative relief are effectively barred, unless the practitioner wants to receive a tart note from some functionary admonishing about the "problem". E-filing is just another method by which courts and judges transfer their burden to practitioners, who are the really the only powerless components of the system. Of COURSE it is easier for the court to require all of its imput to conform to certain formats, but this imposition does NOT improve the quality of the practice of law and does NOT improve the ability of the practitioner to advocate for his client or to fashion pleadings that exactly conform to his client's best interests. And we should be very wary of the disingenuous pablum about the costs. The courts will find a way to stick it to the practitioner. Lake County is a VERY good example of this rapaciousness. Any one who does not believe this is invited to review the various special fees that system imposes upon practitioners- as practitioners- and upon each case ON TOP of the court costs normal in every case manually filed. Jurisprudence according to Aldous Huxley.

  2. Any attorneys who practice in federal court should be able to say the same as I can ... efiling is great. I have been doing it in fed court since it started way back. Pacer has its drawbacks, but the ability to hit an e-docket and pull up anything and everything onscreen is a huge plus for a litigator, eps the sole practitioner, who lacks a filing clerk and the paralegal support of large firms. Were I an Indiana attorney I would welcome this great step forward.

  3. Can we get full disclosure on lobbyist's payments to legislatures such as Mr Buck? AS long as there are idiots that are disrespectful of neighbors and intent on shooting fireworks every night, some kind of regulations are needed.

  4. I am the mother of the child in this case. My silence on the matter was due to the fact that I filed, both in Illinois and Indiana, child support cases. I even filed supporting documentation with the Indiana family law court. Not sure whether this information was provided to the court of appeals or not. Wish the case was done before moving to Indiana, because no matter what, there is NO WAY the state of Illinois would have allowed an appeal on a child support case!

  5. "No one is safe when the Legislature is in session."

ADVERTISEMENT