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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. As one of the many consumers affected by this breach, I found my bank data had been lifted and used to buy over $200 of various merchandise in New York. I did a pretty good job of tracing the purchases to stores around a college campus just from the info on my bank statement. Hm. Mr. Hill, I would like my $200 back! It doesn't belong to the state, in my opinion. Give it back to the consumers affected. I had to freeze my credit and take out data protection, order a new debit card and wait until it arrived. I deserve something for my trouble!

  2. Don't we have bigger issues to concern ourselves with?

  3. Anyone who takes the time to study disciplinary and bar admission cases in Indiana ... much of which is, as a matter of course and by intent, off the record, would have a very difficult time drawing lines that did not take into account things which are not supposed to matter, such as affiliations, associations, associates and the like. Justice Hoosier style is a far departure than what issues in most other parts of North America. (More like Central America, in fact.) See, e.g., http://www.theindianalawyer.com/indiana-attorney-illegally-practicing-in-florida-suspended-for-18-months/PARAMS/article/42200 When while the Indiana court system end the cruel practice of killing prophets of due process and those advocating for blind justice?

  4. Wouldn't this call for an investigation of Government corruption? Chief Justice Loretta Rush, wrote that the case warranted the high court’s review because the method the Indiana Court of Appeals used to reach its decision was “a significant departure from the law.” Specifically, David wrote that the appellate panel ruled after reweighing of the evidence, which is NOT permissible at the appellate level. **But yet, they look the other way while an innocent child was taken by a loving mother who did nothing wrong"

  5. Different rules for different folks....

ADVERTISEMENT