ILNews

IPBC exec director's last day Friday

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
Friday will be Monica Fennell's last day as executive director of the Indiana Pro Bono Commission - at least until she returns next August. Fennell will be in Washington, D.C., for a one-year fellowship with the U.S. Supreme Court in the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts. Her replacement for a one-year fellowship of her own is Trischa Zorn-Hudson.

Zorn-Hudson has already been working with Fennell, and her first full day will be July 23.

"I know that the Pro Bono Commission and its district programs will benefit from Trischa's energy and enthusiasm for helping others and for access to justice," Fennell wrote in an e-mail she sent to those she worked with in her capacity as executive director. "I will miss all of you and look forward to working with you when I return from Washington, D.C., in August 2008."

Zorn-Hudson graduated from Indiana University School of Law - Indianapolis in 2005. She was a teacher in Indianapolis and planned to use her law degree to be a youth advocate, according to IUPUI's Web site about notable alumni. She is also the most decorated Paralympian in the history of the Paralympic Games. She has 55 swimming medals - 41 of them gold - and holds eight world records. Zorn-Hudson's office is at the Indiana Bar Foundation, 230 E. Ohio St., Indianapolis. She can be reached at (317) 269-2415 or tzorn@inbf.org.

Indiana Lawyer reported about Fennell's fellowship in the June 13 issue: "A Supreme Opportunity: Director of IPBC to start fellowship in August."
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