ILNews

Indiana judges to present at pro bono event

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Supreme Court Justice Frank Sullivan, appellate Judge Nancy Vaidik and lawyers and judges from Pro Bono District One will be among the presenters at a daylong event July 22 at Valparaiso University School of Law. The event, “A Potpourri of Timely Topics,” is co-sponsored by the law school and NWI Volunteer Lawyers.

Topics on the agenda include prosecution of domestic battery, judicial perspectives on handling pro se parties, and updates on workers’ compensation and family law. Michael Witte, chair of the Disciplinary Commission, will speak about ethics.

Justice Sullivan will present “Apprendi to Present – The Development of Criminal Law Sentencing in the last 20 Years,” during a working lunch, which is included in the cost of admission. Judge Vaidik will present “Courtroom: Evidentiary Foundations for Newfangled Communications: emails, tweets, text messages, etc.”

Other presenters scheduled to speak so far include Judges William Boklund, David Chidester, Elizabeth Tavitas and Julia Jent; attorneys Jim Sarkisian, Rich Wolter, Adam Tavitas, and Deb Dubovich; Kerry Hyatt Blomquist, executive director of the Indiana Coalition Against Domestic Violence; and Ivan Bodensteiner, professor at Valparaiso University School of Law.

Judy Stanton, executive director of NWI Volunteer Lawyers, said she is still seeking law firms who are interested in underwriting the event, which is a fundraiser for Pro Bono District One. Current sponsors are Hoeppner Wagner & Evans, Rhame & Elwood, and Kenneth Allen & Associates.

Registration is $200, but Stanton said anyone who registers by July 8 and mentions Indiana Lawyer will receive a discounted registration of $175. The event is approved for up to five hours of CLE/2.5 hours of ethics. For registration information, contact Judy Stanton at probono@hotbartlaw.net or 219-942-3404.•

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. Family court judges never fail to surprise me with their irrational thinking. First of all any man who abuses his wife is not fit to be a parent. A man who can't control his anger should not be allowed around his child unsupervised period. Just because he's never been convicted of abusing his child doesn't mean he won't and maybe he hasn't but a man that has such poor judgement and control is not fit to parent without oversight - only a moron would think otherwise. Secondly, why should the mother have to pay? He's the one who made the poor decisions to abuse and he should be the one to pay the price - monetarily and otherwise. Yes it's sad that the little girl may be deprived of her father, but really what kind of father is he - the one that abuses her mother the one that can't even step up and do what's necessary on his own instead the abused mother is to pay for him???? What is this Judge thinking? Another example of how this world rewards bad behavior and punishes those who do right. Way to go Judge - NOT.

  2. Right on. Legalize it. We can take billions away from the drug cartels and help reduce violence in central America and more unwanted illegal immigration all in one fell swoop. cut taxes on the savings from needless incarcerations. On and stop eroding our fourth amendment freedom or whatever's left of it.

  3. "...a switch from crop production to hog production "does not constitute a significant change."??? REALLY?!?! Any judge that cannot see a significant difference between a plant and an animal needs to find another line of work.

  4. Why do so many lawyers get away with lying in court, Jamie Yoak?

  5. 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.

ADVERTISEMENT