ILNews

IndyBar: Indianapolis Bar Foundation to Award $35,000 Grant

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indianapolis Bar Foundation (IBF) is now accepting applications through April 1 for its Impact Fund Grant of at least $35,000 to be awarded in late May 2014. Application instructions and additional information can be found at indybar.org/ibf.

The IBF Impact Fund serves as an important vehicle to facilitate the financial generosity of members of the Indianapolis Bar Association. Through the Impact Fund, the IBF seeks to invest substantial funds and IndyBar member participation in support of a project presented by a non-profit organization that seeks to affect a significant positive impact in central Indiana.

The grant will be awarded to a non-profit organization that presents an initiative that will advance the administration of justice and an understanding of the law through philanthropy, education, and service. The grant criteria include the following: the project must present an opportunity for IndyBar members to support the initiative by providing human resources, the project should be either a new venture or the significant supplementation of an existing service, the project should articulate a plan to be sustained by additional funding beyond that provided by the IBF, and the project should enhance public understanding and awareness of the legal profession.

The grant was awarded to Indiana Legal Services’ Military Assistance Project in 2013 and to Reach for Youth for its Teen Court program in 2012. In 2011, Indiana University’s Health & Human Rights Clinic located in Haughville was chosen to receive the Impact Grant.

In addition to the Impact Fund, the IBF grants $105,000 to a variety of legal advice and community service programs co-sponsored with the Indianapolis Bar Association. Some of the programs funded include Ask a Lawyer, Legal Line, the Bankruptcy Help Line, and educational programming at the Bench Bar Conference. Additional information about the Indianapolis Bar Foundation and the Impact Fund Grant can be found at indybar.org/ibf.

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. 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."

  2. wow is this a bunch of bs! i know the facts!

  3. MCBA .... time for a new release about your entire membership (or is it just the alter ego) being "saddened and disappointed" in the failure to lynch a police officer protecting himself in the line of duty. But this time against Eric Holder and the Federal Bureau of Investigation: "WASHINGTON — Justice Department lawyers will recommend that no civil rights charges be brought against the police officer who fatally shot an unarmed teenager in Ferguson, Mo., after an F.B.I. investigation found no evidence to support charges, law enforcement officials said Wednesday." http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/22/us/justice-department-ferguson-civil-rights-darren-wilson.html?ref=us&_r=0

  4. Dr wail asfour lives 3 hours from the hospital,where if he gets an emergency at least he needs three hours,while even if he is on call he should be in a location where it gives him max 10 minutes to be beside the patient,they get paid double on their on call days ,where look how they handle it,so if the death of the patient occurs on weekend and these doctors still repeat same pattern such issue should be raised,they should be closer to the patient.on other hand if all the death occured on the absence of the Dr and the nurses handle it,the nurses should get trained how to function appearntly they not that good,if the Dr lives 3 hours far from the hospital on his call days he should sleep in the hospital

  5. It's a capital offense...one for you Latin scholars..

ADVERTISEMENT