ILNews

LRAP dinner bigger than last year

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Equal Justice Works at Indiana University School of Law - Indianapolis hosted a crowd of more than 180 guests at its second annual dinner to support the Loan Repayment Assistance Program, which helps to pay off loans of law school graduates who decide to work in public interest. The dinner was at the Indiana Historical Society in Indianapolis March 6.

Andrea Ciobanu, a 3L and president of Equal Justice Works for the law school, said they have yet to determine how much was raised based on expenses, but the organizers are optimistic.

Last year's dinner, which took place at the law school, was at capacity at 140 guests, which is why they moved the event to a bigger venue. That event raised enough for the program to reach its endowment of $100,000. The first round of loans will be awarded during the 2010-11 school year.

The dinner also recognized lawyers who do public interest work. This year, the featured keynote speaker was Indiana Attorney General Greg Zoeller. Featured honorees included Fran Quigley, class of 1987, director of operations for AMPATH and a co-founder of the Legal Aid Clinic of Eldoret, Kenya; Kerry Hyatt Blomquist, class of 1990, legal director of the Indiana Coalition Against Domestic Violence and director of the Protective Order Pro Bono Project of Indianapolis; and Lisa Koop, class of 2004, a managing attorney at National Immigrant Justice Center in Chicago, where she supervises in the asylum, trafficking, and immigrant legal defense projects.

This year's host committee members included Chief Justice Randall Shepard, Secretary of State Todd Rokita, Emily Benfer, John Maley, Gary Miller, Tiffany Murray, Carl Pebworth, Caroline Richardson, Florence Roisman, Robyn Rucker, Rafael Sanchez, and LaWanda Ward.

For those who'd like to support LRAP but were unable to attend the dinner, Ciobanu suggested contacting the school's Office of Development at (317) 278-7541.

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. Being on this journey from the beginning has convinced me the justice system really doesn't care about the welfare of the child. The trial court judge knew the child belonged with the mother. The father having total disregard for the rules of the court. Not only did this cost the mother and child valuable time together but thousands in legal fees. When the child was with the father the mother paid her child support. When the child was finally with the right parent somehow the father got away without having to pay one penny of child support. He had to be in control. Since he withheld all information regarding the child's welfare he put her in harms way. Mother took the child to the doctor when she got sick and was totally embarrassed she knew nothing regarding the medical information especially the allergies, The mother texted the father (from the doctors office) and he replied call his attorney. To me this doesn't seem like a concerned father. Seeing the child upset when she had to go back to the father. What upset me the most was finding out the child sleeps with him. Sometimes in the nude. Maybe I don't understand all the rules of the law but I thought this was also morally wrong. A concerned parent would allow the child to finish the school year. Say goodbye to her friends. It saddens me to know the child will not have contact with the sisters, aunts, uncles and the 87 year old grandfather. He didn't allow it before. Only the mother is allowed to talk to the child. I don't think now will be any different. I hope the decision the courts made would've been the same one if this was a member of their family. Someday this child will end up in therapy if allowed to remain with the father.

  2. Ok attorney Straw ... if that be a good idea ... And I am not saying it is ... but if it were ... would that be ripe prior to her suffering an embarrassing remand from the Seventh? Seems more than a tad premature here soldier. One putting on the armor should not boast liked one taking it off.

  3. The judge thinks that she is so cute to deny jurisdiction, but without jurisdiction, she loses her immunity. She did not give me any due process hearing or any discovery, like the Middlesex case provided for that lawyer. Because she has refused to protect me and she has no immunity because she rejected jurisdiction, I am now suing her in her district.

  4. Sam Bradbury was never a resident of Lafayette he lived in rural Tippecanoe County, Thats an error.

  5. Sam Bradbury was never a resident of Lafayette he lived in rural Tippecanoe County, Thats an error.

ADVERTISEMENT