ILNews

Legal services provider partners with nonprofit to help homeless veterans

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A partnership between two Indianapolis nonprofits will provide for the first time ongoing legal services to homeless veterans working to become self-sufficient.

The Hoosier Veterans Assistance Foundation of Indiana Inc. and the Neighborhood Christian Legal Clinic have entered into an agreement that will dedicate an attorney to focus on untangling the legal issues that ensnare many homeless veterans at HVAF.

A group of attorneys and the HVAF began looking for ways to bring legal help to homeless veterans in the fall of 2012. They first put out a call for “good ideas” and then enlisted the help of a consultant to analyze the proposals that were submitted by other attorneys and legal service providers.

The effort reached a milestone July 11 when HVAF and the clinic signed the agreement during a special ceremony. At 4:14 pm July 11, Charles “Chuck” Haenlein, HVAF president and CEO, uncapped a fountain pen and Josh Abel, executive director of the Neighborhood Christian Legal Clinic, retrieved a ball point pen from his coat pocket. Then the pair leaned over the conference table and signed four copies of the agreement.

Starting Aug. 1, attorney Brian Dunkel, a staff attorney at the clinic, will devote 20 hours per week to clients at HVAF. He will be a part of the agency’s treatment team, working directly with the caseworkers and other staff members to resolve the issues that are preventing veterans from finding permanent homes.

Trent Sandifur, partner at Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP and board member of HVAF, maintained that often the root cause of a veteran’s homelessness is a legal issue. For example, overdue child support could hinder a veteran’s ability to get a job and a suspended driver’s license could hamper a veteran from getting to and from a job.

On top of this, veterans may not be receiving the benefits they are entitled to because they get overwhelmed by the paperwork required by the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs.

“We don’t want any of our clients in a situation where they become frustrated and then give up,” Sandifur said. “The important role the attorney plays is being the advocate and helping to navigate the bureaucracy in addressing their legal needs.”

The agreement runs for one year. Steven Benz, HVAF board chair and associate general counsel at Eli Lilly & Co., encouraged the veterans at HVAF to give feedback on their experiences working with the attorney. Their input will be used, he said, to make the program better.

If the partnership is successful, Barnes & Thornburg partner Bill Moreau believes it could become a model for other agencies serving the homeless. He said that while working to build a 10-year plan to end homelessness in Indianapolis during the Bart Peterson administration, he learned about the importance of delivering legal services to these individuals.    

“I am completely convinced this is the right way to take the first step in this effort,” Moreau said. “The clinic will provide a very, very experienced attorney at relatively low financial risk to HVAF.”


 

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. The $320,000 is the amount the school spent in litigating two lawsuits: One to release the report involving John Trimble (as noted in the story above) and one defending the discrimination lawsuit. The story above does not mention the amount spent to defend the discrimination suit, that's why the numbers don't match. Thanks for reading.

  2. $160k? Yesterday the figure was $320k. Which is it Indiana Lawyer. And even more interesting, which well connected law firm got the (I am guessing) $320k, six time was the fired chancellor received. LOL. (From yesterday's story, which I guess we were expected to forget overnight ... "According to records obtained by the Journal & Courier, Purdue spent $161,812, beginning in July 2012, in a state open records lawsuit and $168,312, beginning in April 2013, for defense in a federal lawsuit. Much of those fees were spent battling court orders to release an independent investigation by attorney John Trimble that found Purdue could have handled the forced retirement better")

  3. The numbers are harsh; 66 - 24 in the House, 40 - 10 in the Senate. And it is an idea pushed by the Democrats. Dead end? Ummm not necessarily. Just need to go big rather than go home. Nuclear option. Give it to the federal courts, the federal courts will ram this down our throats. Like that other invented right of the modern age, feticide. Rights too precious to be held up by 2000 years of civilization hang in the balance. Onward!

  4. I'm currently seeing someone who has a charge of child pornography possession, he didn't know he had it because it was attached to a music video file he downloaded when he was 19/20 yrs old and fought it for years until he couldn't handle it and plead guilty of possession. He's been convicted in Illinois and now lives in Indiana. Wouldn't it be better to give them a chance to prove to the community and their families that they pose no threat? He's so young and now because he was being a kid and downloaded music at a younger age, he has to pay for it the rest of his life? It's unfair, he can't live a normal life, and has to live in fear of what people can say and do to him because of something that happened 10 years ago? No one deserves that, and no one deserves to be labeled for one mistake, he got labeled even though there was no intent to obtain and use the said content. It makes me so sad to see someone I love go through this and it makes me holds me back a lot because I don't know how people around me will accept him...second chances should be given to those under the age of 21 at least so they can be given a chance to live a normal life as a productive member of society.

  5. It's just an ill considered remark. The Sup Ct is inherently political, as it is a core part of government, and Marbury V Madison guaranteed that it would become ever more so Supremely thus. So her remark is meaningless and she just should have not made it.... what she could have said is that Congress is a bunch of lazys and cowards who wont do their jobs so the hard work of making laws clear, oftentimes stops with the Sups sorting things out that could have been resolved by more competent legislation. That would have been a more worthwhile remark and maybe would have had some relevance to what voters do, since voters cant affect who gets appointed to the supremely un-democratic art III courts.

ADVERTISEMENT