ILNews

Sept. 11 fund master to speak at Shepard dinner

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The attorney appointed as special master of the Sept. 11 Victim Compensation Fund of 2001 will be the keynote speaker at this year's Randall T. Shepard Award Dinner.

Kenneth Feinberg, who was appointed by then-Attorney General John Aschroft, administered the fund pro bono for 33 months, which included evaluating applications, determining appropriate compensation, and disseminating awards.

After the shootings at Virginia Tech University last year, Feinberg became the chief administrator of the Hokie Spirit Memorial Fund. He's also served as a court-appointed special settlement master in many cases, including working as an arbitrator to determine the fair market value of the Zapruder film of the John F. Kennedy assassination and determining the allocation of legal fees in the Holocaust slave labor litigation.

The Randall T. Shepard Award is given to attorneys for their commitment and contributions to the pro bono movement throughout the state. The annual dinner is hosted by the Indiana Bar Foundation and the Indiana Pro Bono Commission. Baker & Daniels attorney Carl Pebworth and Hammond Mayor Thomas McDermott Jr. will receive the award.

Also receiving awards that night:

- Pro Bono Publico Award: attorneys Deborah Agard, Gene Arnholt, Ida Coleman Lamberti, and the Bartholomew and Johnson county bar associations

- Law-Related Education Award: Court of Appeals Judge Paul Mathias, Caryn Glawe, Brita Horvath, and Patrick Shoulders

- Presidential Award: Patricia McKinnon

The event, which is open to the public, costs $60 per person to attend and reservations must be made no later than Sept. 30. Those interested in attending may contact Kelly Valentine at the Indiana Bar Foundation at (317) 269-2415 or kvalentine@inbf.org.

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. Such things are no more elections than those in the late, unlamented Soviet Union.

  2. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  3. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  4. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  5. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

ADVERTISEMENT