ILNews

IBA: Indianapolis Bar Foundation Has Record Year

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Ever heard the expression, “give a little, give a lot?” Those supporting the Indianapolis Bar Foundation in 2009 did just that. Whether through a $35 contribution through the Indianapolis Bar Association’s dues renewal or a larger direct contribution; members of the legal community provided nearly $150,000 to fund a variety of community service programs and initiatives. These efforts will provide access for the public to legal services or help lawyers become better stewards of the law. And without donor support – legal community support – these programs could not happen.

“For lawyers who are interested in community outreach, the IBF is the mechanism by which most of these programs are funded,” said John R. Maley, Indianapolis Bar Foundation President. “Ask A Lawyer, Legal Line, Low Asset Wills Program, the Diversity Job Fair – all of these are supported by the Foundation. So donor money and time have a great deal of impact.”

The mission of the IBF – to advance the administration of – rang true with donors in 2009. A record number of donors gave to the IBF last year, 2,015 total. Even so, the work continues and the need for the services supported by these contributors is as great as ever.

There are some fun ways to contribute to the IBF. Coming up on July 8, 2010, is the Lawyer Links Classic, a fantastic golf outing that has gotten bigger and better each year. Put a foursome together for a fun afternoon at Broadmoor Country Club. There are also event sponsorships and hole sponsorships available – a great way to get some exposure and support the IBF.

“There are many golf outings, but there is a lot of collegiality at the Lawyer Links Classic and the money raised supports organizations that lawyers truly care about,” Maley said.

In the fall, the IBF holds its most popular event, An Evening Under the Stars dinner and auction. Attended by more than 300 legal and business community leaders each year, the dinner will be held at the Ritz Charles in Carmel. “This is the IBF’s main fundraiser, but it has become more than that – it is a place to relax and have a great time,” said Kelley Johnson, Dinner/Auction Chair and attorney with Cohen & Malad. “It’s an evening of fun, great food, and time spent with great people bidding on some tremendous auction items.”

Evening Under the Stars will be on Friday, September 10, 2010. Gather your friends, colleagues and clients for a great evening to benefit the IBF. You may register for both the Lawyer Links Classic and the annual dinner at www.indybar.org.

In 2009, these three events raised more than $74,200, on the way to helping the Foundation raise nearly $280,000. The goal for 2010 is $250,000, which Maley and the IBF board hope will be bolstered by getting even more law firms to support the annual Law Firm Campaign. “We had tremendous support from lawyers and law firms last year; the number of firms that achieved 100% of its employees giving to the IBF had significant growth,” he said. “We hope to expand that this year.”

In addition to funding new and existing programs, the IBF supports efforts that cultivate leadership in the community and assist law students, among them the IBA Bar Leader Series and the IBF scholarships for law students. Deserving members of the legal profession also are selected as Distinguished Fellows of the IBF, who show their support of the legal community in many ways. The IBF will also be launching a Senior Fellows initiative to recognize donors who have demonstrated leadership and long-term support of the IBF’s mission.

“The Foundation has grown significantly since I began work with the Indianapolis Bar in 1991,” said Julie Armstrong, Indianapolis Bar Foundation and Association Executive Director. “Back in the day the IBF was a somewhat sleepy sister to the Association. Through the vision of many past leaders the IBF’s impact and success has grown.”

Why should you give to the Indianapolis Bar Foundation in 2010? Because the IBF directly supports programs and causes that you care about as a legal professional. Plus, the IBF throws a pretty good party. Those interested in getting involved are encouraged to email Julie Armstrong at jarmstrong@indybar.org.•

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
2015 Distinguished Barrister &
Up and Coming Lawyer Reception

Tuesday, May 5, 2015 • 4:30 - 7:00 pm
Learn More


ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. The $320,000 is the amount the school spent in litigating two lawsuits: One to release the report involving John Trimble (as noted in the story above) and one defending the discrimination lawsuit. The story above does not mention the amount spent to defend the discrimination suit, that's why the numbers don't match. Thanks for reading.

  2. $160k? Yesterday the figure was $320k. Which is it Indiana Lawyer. And even more interesting, which well connected law firm got the (I am guessing) $320k, six time was the fired chancellor received. LOL. (From yesterday's story, which I guess we were expected to forget overnight ... "According to records obtained by the Journal & Courier, Purdue spent $161,812, beginning in July 2012, in a state open records lawsuit and $168,312, beginning in April 2013, for defense in a federal lawsuit. Much of those fees were spent battling court orders to release an independent investigation by attorney John Trimble that found Purdue could have handled the forced retirement better")

  3. The numbers are harsh; 66 - 24 in the House, 40 - 10 in the Senate. And it is an idea pushed by the Democrats. Dead end? Ummm not necessarily. Just need to go big rather than go home. Nuclear option. Give it to the federal courts, the federal courts will ram this down our throats. Like that other invented right of the modern age, feticide. Rights too precious to be held up by 2000 years of civilization hang in the balance. Onward!

  4. I'm currently seeing someone who has a charge of child pornography possession, he didn't know he had it because it was attached to a music video file he downloaded when he was 19/20 yrs old and fought it for years until he couldn't handle it and plead guilty of possession. He's been convicted in Illinois and now lives in Indiana. Wouldn't it be better to give them a chance to prove to the community and their families that they pose no threat? He's so young and now because he was being a kid and downloaded music at a younger age, he has to pay for it the rest of his life? It's unfair, he can't live a normal life, and has to live in fear of what people can say and do to him because of something that happened 10 years ago? No one deserves that, and no one deserves to be labeled for one mistake, he got labeled even though there was no intent to obtain and use the said content. It makes me so sad to see someone I love go through this and it makes me holds me back a lot because I don't know how people around me will accept him...second chances should be given to those under the age of 21 at least so they can be given a chance to live a normal life as a productive member of society.

  5. It's just an ill considered remark. The Sup Ct is inherently political, as it is a core part of government, and Marbury V Madison guaranteed that it would become ever more so Supremely thus. So her remark is meaningless and she just should have not made it.... what she could have said is that Congress is a bunch of lazys and cowards who wont do their jobs so the hard work of making laws clear, oftentimes stops with the Sups sorting things out that could have been resolved by more competent legislation. That would have been a more worthwhile remark and maybe would have had some relevance to what voters do, since voters cant affect who gets appointed to the supremely un-democratic art III courts.

ADVERTISEMENT