ILNews

IndyBar: Matthew Maples Selected as IndyBar Law Student of the Year

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

iba-talstl.jpgThe importance of pro bono service is a theme that is routinely emphasized to practicing attorneys. For one law student, no encouragement will be necessary. The Indianapolis Bar Association’s 2014 Law Student of the Year, Matthew Maples of the Robert H. McKinney School of Law, has completed close to 2,000 hours of pro bono service during his law school career.

Maples will be honored at the bar’s annual Take a Law Student to Lunch event on Thursday, May 15. The luncheon will take place at the Hilton Indianapolis (120 W. Market St.) from noon to 1 p.m.

Maples began an internship at Indiana Legal Services (ILS) in July 2012, initially pursuing the opportunity because of his intense desire to use his legal education to help those most in need. Over the past two years at ILS, he has logged more than 1,500 pro bono hours assisting clients. His nomination notes that he often went above and beyond the expectations of an intern, working after hours and on weekends. Maples has also worked since August 2013 as a law clerk at Hocker & Associates LLC.

His nominator, Carrie Lynn of Indiana Legal Services, says, “I believe Matt’s commitment to helping low-income Hoosiers serves as an example to both law students and members of the legal community.” Lynn estimates that between his time at ILS and as the chairman of the Student Outreach Clinic, Maples has completed 1,900 pro bono hours, all while maintaining a superior academic record.

Maples received his BA in Philosophy/Religious Studies and Political Science from the University of North Carolina at Wilmington and will receive his JD from the McKinney School of Law this May.•

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