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

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. Video pen? Nice work, "JW"! Let this be a lesson and a caution to all disgruntled ex-spouses (or soon-to-be ex-spouses) . . . you may think that altercation is going to get you some satisfaction . . . it will not.

  2. First comment on this thread is a fitting final comment on this thread, as that the MCBA never answered Duncan's fine question, and now even Eric Holder agrees that the MCBA was in material error as to the facts: "I don't get it" from Duncan December 1, 2014 5:10 PM "The Grand Jury met for 25 days and heard 70 hours of testimony according to this article and they made a decision that no crime occurred. On what basis does the MCBA conclude that their decision was "unjust"? What special knowledge or evidence does the MCBA have that the Grand Jury hearing this matter was unaware of? The system that we as lawyers are sworn to uphold made a decision that there was insufficient proof that officer committed a crime. How can any of us say we know better what was right than the jury that actually heard all of the the evidence in this case."

  3. wow is this a bunch of bs! i know the facts!

  4. MCBA .... time for a new release about your entire membership (or is it just the alter ego) being "saddened and disappointed" in the failure to lynch a police officer protecting himself in the line of duty. But this time against Eric Holder and the Federal Bureau of Investigation: "WASHINGTON — Justice Department lawyers will recommend that no civil rights charges be brought against the police officer who fatally shot an unarmed teenager in Ferguson, Mo., after an F.B.I. investigation found no evidence to support charges, law enforcement officials said Wednesday." http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/22/us/justice-department-ferguson-civil-rights-darren-wilson.html?ref=us&_r=0

  5. Dr wail asfour lives 3 hours from the hospital,where if he gets an emergency at least he needs three hours,while even if he is on call he should be in a location where it gives him max 10 minutes to be beside the patient,they get paid double on their on call days ,where look how they handle it,so if the death of the patient occurs on weekend and these doctors still repeat same pattern such issue should be raised,they should be closer to the patient.on other hand if all the death occured on the absence of the Dr and the nurses handle it,the nurses should get trained how to function appearntly they not that good,if the Dr lives 3 hours far from the hospital on his call days he should sleep in the hospital

ADVERTISEMENT