ILNews

ISBA receives award for juvenile justice summit

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share


The Indiana State Bar Association has learned it will receive the LexisNexis 2010 Community and Educational Outreach Award for the “Summit on Racial Disparities in the Juvenile Justice System: A Statewide Dialogue,” which took place in August 2009.

The ISBA will receive the award at the National Association of Bar Executives membership luncheon in August in San Francisco, according to Carissa Long, assistant director of communications for the ISBA.

Indiana Lawyer covered the conference in the Sept. 2-15, 2009 issue.

“It takes a lot of hard work, not only to put together a summit of such magnitude, but to get key legislation passed,” ISBA President Roderick Morgan said via e-mail. “Special credit goes to JauNae Hanger, Paje Felts and Representative Linda Lawson for their visionary approach on this issue. I am pleased to have a relatively small part in all of this.”

Hanger helped coordinate the summit and worked on House Enrolled Act 1193 with Felts and Lawson during the 2010 session. The act was a direct response to discussions that took place at the conference. That act provides for a commission of various stakeholders, including teachers, police officers, mental health workers, social workers, attorneys, principals, and others who come into regular contact with juveniles.

“Racial disparities in the juvenile justice system is not just a problem in Indiana,” Hanger said via e-mail. “All states are grappling with how to reduce disparate results for our youth. This national award reaffirms the importance of Indiana’s recent steps to address this problem in a comprehensive and systemic way to benefit Indiana’s children. Much of what Indiana does will definitely be groundbreaking and be greatly watched by others around the nation.”

Hanger added the ISBA will release a follow-up report to the summit at the organization’s annual meeting in October.
 

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. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  2. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

  3. Here's an idea...how about we MORE heavily regulate the law schools to reduce the surplus of graduates, driving starting salaries up for those new grads, so that we can all pay our insane amount of student loans off in a reasonable amount of time and then be able to afford to do pro bono & low-fee work? I've got friends in other industries, radiology for example, and their schools accept a very limited number of students so there will never be a glut of new grads and everyone's pay stays high. For example, my radiologist friend's school accepted just six new students per year.

  4. I totally agree with John Smith.

  5. An idea that would harm the public good which is protected by licensing. Might as well abolish doctor and health care professions licensing too. Ridiculous. Unrealistic. Would open the floodgates of mischief and abuse. Even veteranarians are licensed. How has deregulation served the public good in banking, for example? Enough ideology already!

ADVERTISEMENT