ILNews

Lawyer competition donates 50 tons of food

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share


Attorneys from around the state raised more than 50 tons of food through the Attorney General’s annual March Against Hunger competition.

Thirty-one law firms and law offices across the state participated in the food-drive competition from March 15 to 31. Lawyers collected food and money to donate to 10 regional food banks.

Competitors were broken into three categories: large firms of 25 attorneys or more; small firms of one to 24 lawyers; and law offices of public or nonprofit attorneys. Barnes & Thornburg won the large-firm division, collecting $10,492 and 1,426 pounds of canned goods and other food items. Rubin & Levin in Indianapolis won the small-firm division by raising $1,045 and 10 pounds of food. The Office of United States Trustee, Indianapolis/Region 10 won the public or nonprofit attorneys category by collecting $520 and 140 pounds of food.

Overall, a total of 6,405 pounds of food was donated, along with another $18,825 in monetary contributions. Using a conversion formula of each dollar being equal to 5 pounds of food, the drive raised the equivalent of 100,525 pounds of food for the regional food banks.

Last year was the first March Against Hunger competition with 45 law offices participating statewide. They donated a total of 10,093 pounds of food, and raised another $28,542.63 in monetary contributions to the effort, said Bryan Corbin, public information officer for the AG’s Office.
 

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
2015 Distinguished Barrister &
Up and Coming Lawyer Reception

Tuesday, May 5, 2015 • 4:30 - 7:00 pm
Learn More


ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I'm not sure what's more depressing: the fact that people would pay $35,000 per year to attend an unaccredited law school, or the fact that the same people "are hanging in there and willing to follow the dean’s lead in going forward" after the same school fails to gain accreditation, rendering their $70,000 and counting education worthless. Maybe it's a good thing these people can't sit for the bar.

  2. Such is not uncommon on law school startups. Students and faculty should tap Bruce Green, city attorney of Lufkin, Texas. He led a group of studnets and faculty and sued the ABA as a law student. He knows the ropes, has advised other law school startups. Very astute and principled attorney of unpopular clients, at least in his past, before Lufkin tapped him to run their show.

  3. Not that having the appellate records on Odyssey won't be welcome or useful, but I would rather they first bring in the stray counties that aren't yet connected on the trial court level.

  4. Aristotle said 350 bc: "The most hated sort, and with the greatest reason, is usury, which makes a gain out of money itself, and not from the natural object of it. For money was intended to be used in exchange, but not to increase at interest. And this term interest, which means the birth of money from money, is applied to the breeding of money because the offspring resembles the parent. Wherefore of an modes of getting wealth this is the most unnatural.

  5. Oh yes, lifetime tenure. The Founders gave that to the federal judges .... at that time no federal district courts existed .... so we are talking the Supreme Court justices only in context ....so that they could rule against traditional marriage and for the other pet projects of the sixties generation. Right. Hmmmm, but I must admit, there is something from that time frame that seems to recommend itself in this context ..... on yes, from a document the Founders penned in 1776: " He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good."

ADVERTISEMENT