ILNews

IndyBar: IBF to Host Training with 2013 Impact Fund Recipient

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

By Donald Morgan Faegre Baker Daniels LLP

IndyBar attorneys will have the opportunity for first-hand involvement with the 2013 recipient of the Indianapolis Bar Foundation’s Impact Fund Recipient at an upcoming training program and CLE this August. The IndyBar and IBF are partnering with Indiana Legal Service’s Military Assistance Project (MAP) to offer a two-hour CLE and training program. “Military Cultural Competency and Basic Advice Introduction” will take place Wednesday, Aug. 27 from 9 to 11 a.m. at the IndyBar Education Center.

This program will focus on the areas of law that most often impact members of the military and veterans, such as Veterans Affairs (VA) benefits as well as family or criminal law issues that often complicate securing housing or employment. It will also include an introduction to a new Military Cultural Competency Manual for attorneys, and each attendee will receive a copy of the manual. Information about VA accreditation for attorneys interested in expanding their practices to represent clients before the VA will also be provided.

This CLE will be offered free of charge to any lawyer who agrees to take one pro bono case through MAP or volunteer at the VA during the Indianapolis Bar Association’s Oct. 14 Ask a Lawyer program. Presenters at the program will include Polli Pollem from MAP, Robin Kelly from Mitchell Law Group and Mark Sullivan from Mark K. Sullivan & Associates PC. Attendees will receive two hours of general CLE credit, including a half-hour ethics credit.

In the time since MAP received the Impact Fund grant in 2013, the program has been utilized to expand representation of veterans and members of the military through workshops. MAP has also used the grant to increase the number of homeless veterans they are able to take in at a local housing development, as well as to increase intake of veterans at the Roudebush VA Medical Center. It has allowed MAP to develop the Military Cultural Competency Manual, which better enables attorneys to represent military members and veterans.

Please keep an eye out for upcoming opportunities to engage in IndyBar’s continuing partnership with MAP and with the 2014 Impact Fund recipient, the Joseph Maley Foundation.•

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. I need an experienced attorney to handle a breach of contract matter. Kindly respond for more details. Graham Young

  2. I thought the slurs were the least grave aspects of her misconduct, since they had nothing to do with her being on the bench. Why then do I suspect they were the focus? I find this a troubling trend. At least she was allowed to keep her law license.

  3. Section 6 of Article I of the Indiana Constitution is pretty clear and unequivocal: "Section 6. No money shall be drawn from the treasury for the benefit of any religious or theological institution."

  4. Video pen? Nice work, "JW"! Let this be a lesson and a caution to all disgruntled ex-spouses (or soon-to-be ex-spouses) . . . you may think that altercation is going to get you some satisfaction . . . it will not.

  5. First comment on this thread is a fitting final comment on this thread, as that the MCBA never answered Duncan's fine question, and now even Eric Holder agrees that the MCBA was in material error as to the facts: "I don't get it" from Duncan December 1, 2014 5:10 PM "The Grand Jury met for 25 days and heard 70 hours of testimony according to this article and they made a decision that no crime occurred. On what basis does the MCBA conclude that their decision was "unjust"? What special knowledge or evidence does the MCBA have that the Grand Jury hearing this matter was unaware of? The system that we as lawyers are sworn to uphold made a decision that there was insufficient proof that officer committed a crime. How can any of us say we know better what was right than the jury that actually heard all of the the evidence in this case."

ADVERTISEMENT