ILNews

Law firm gives first pro bono award

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
A recent graduate of Indiana University School of Law - Bloomington has been given the first Terry and Judy Albright Pro Bono and Public Interest Award. The law firm Baker & Daniels has sponsored the award in honor of the couple.

Alex Kornya received the award for the significant work he's done in pro bono and public interest areas. Kornya served as a student advisor and co-director of the Protective Order Project and worked with other anti-domestic violence organizations. He also was a student intern for the District 10 Pro Bono Project and for Indiana Legal Services in Bloomington. Kornya will work for Iowa Legal Aid next year.

The award is named after law school graduate Terry Albright and his wife, Judy. Terry has worked as a senior trial attorney in the Indianapolis office of Baker & Daniels for the last four decades and is currently involved with the state's alternative dispute resolution movement. He has helped lead the growth in commitment to access to justice and public service through pro bono and public interest work in the bar and IU School of Law - Bloomington.

Judy, who passed away earlier this year, served as a president of the Indianapolis YMCA, was a president of three Parent Teacher Associations, and worked at the Volunteer Action Center.
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. Family court judges never fail to surprise me with their irrational thinking. First of all any man who abuses his wife is not fit to be a parent. A man who can't control his anger should not be allowed around his child unsupervised period. Just because he's never been convicted of abusing his child doesn't mean he won't and maybe he hasn't but a man that has such poor judgement and control is not fit to parent without oversight - only a moron would think otherwise. Secondly, why should the mother have to pay? He's the one who made the poor decisions to abuse and he should be the one to pay the price - monetarily and otherwise. Yes it's sad that the little girl may be deprived of her father, but really what kind of father is he - the one that abuses her mother the one that can't even step up and do what's necessary on his own instead the abused mother is to pay for him???? What is this Judge thinking? Another example of how this world rewards bad behavior and punishes those who do right. Way to go Judge - NOT.

  2. Right on. Legalize it. We can take billions away from the drug cartels and help reduce violence in central America and more unwanted illegal immigration all in one fell swoop. cut taxes on the savings from needless incarcerations. On and stop eroding our fourth amendment freedom or whatever's left of it.

  3. "...a switch from crop production to hog production "does not constitute a significant change."??? REALLY?!?! Any judge that cannot see a significant difference between a plant and an animal needs to find another line of work.

  4. Why do so many lawyers get away with lying in court, Jamie Yoak?

  5. Future generations will be amazed that we prosecuted people for possessing a harmless plant. The New York Times came out in favor of legalization in Saturday's edition of the newspaper.

ADVERTISEMENT