ILNews

Mortgage CLE numbers announced Monday

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Representatives from the Indiana Supreme Court will be in Evansville Monday to release the number of judges, attorneys, and mediators who were trained this summer and fall to represent borrowers and handle settlement conferences.

Since June, 34 sessions of the "Back Home in Indiana - Guiding Homeowners Through Foreclosure" CLE have taken place around the state. The trainings were originally scheduled to wrap up in Vanderburgh County Oct. 19, but an additional session has been added at the Indiana University Maurer School of Law - Bloomington for Oct. 23. Registrations for the attorney and mediator CLEs are available through the end of today by clicking here.

As noted in the Sept. 16-29, 2009, edition of Indiana Lawyer in the story "Attorneys step up to participate," 946 attorneys, judges, and mediators had taken the trainings - well above the goal of 700 participants.

At that time, it was not yet known how many of those would be eligible or offer to take on a pro bono case or mediate a settlement conference. That number will likely be available at the annual conference of pro bono district plan administrators, which coincides with the Indiana State Bar Association's annual meeting in November.

At the upcoming press conference, Indiana Court of Appeals Judge Melissa May and Indiana Supreme Court Chief Justice Randall T. Shepard will answer questions about the program and will address how the judiciary will continue its efforts to assist those in danger of losing their homes to foreclosures.

The CLE sessions are part of the ongoing efforts of the Indiana Housing and Community Development Authority and the Indiana Foreclosure Prevention Network, led by Lt. Gov. Becky Skillman. Those efforts include a hotline and Web site, www.877GetHope.org.

At a fundraiser for the Community Development Law Center Friday morning, Skillman spoke about the state's foreclosure prevention efforts and said more than 50,000 families have sought help through the Web site and hotline since those efforts started in late 2007.

The CLE sessions were supported by the Indiana Pro Bono Commission, The Indiana Commission on Continuing Legal Education, the Indiana Continuing Legal Education Forum, bar associations, law firms across the state, the Indiana Attorney General's Office, and the Indiana Supreme Court.

ADVERTISEMENT

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. I need an experienced attorney to handle a breach of contract matter. Kindly respond for more details. Graham Young

  2. I thought the slurs were the least grave aspects of her misconduct, since they had nothing to do with her being on the bench. Why then do I suspect they were the focus? I find this a troubling trend. At least she was allowed to keep her law license.

  3. Section 6 of Article I of the Indiana Constitution is pretty clear and unequivocal: "Section 6. No money shall be drawn from the treasury for the benefit of any religious or theological institution."

  4. 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.

  5. 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."

ADVERTISEMENT