ILNews

Talk to a Lawyer training

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

On Oct. 10, Heartland Pro Bono Council will hold its annual Talk to a Lawyer Today training from 9 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. at Barnes & Thornburg, 11 S. Meridian St., Indianapolis. The title of this year’s training is: “Amazingly Interesting CLE for Attorneys with a Heart Seminar.”

Topics covered during the day will include identity theft, paternity, advising debtors, estate planning, First Amendment concerns, and ethics.

Talk to a Lawyer Day will be Jan. 16, 2012 – Martin Luther King, Jr., Day. Lawyers who agree to work a two-hour shift that day at the Indiana State Bar Association taking calls from the public, and who agree to take one civil case for Heartland Pro Bono, may participate in the Oct. 10 training free of charge. The training offers six hours of continuing legal education credit and one hour of ethics credit.

The fee to attend is $25 for prosecutors, public defenders, and inactive or government attorneys who agree to work a two-hour shift on MLK Day. Lawyers may attend the training with no pro bono obligation for $200.

Registration and other information is available online at www.heartlandprobono.org/. For further details, contact Laurie Boyd at 317-631-9410, ext. 2267.•

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. 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