ILNews

Volunteers still needed for Talk to a Lawyer

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A few pro bono districts participating in the Talk to a Lawyer Today program have openings available for attorneys looking to donate a few hours of their time Monday to help the underserved in their communities.

Talk to a Lawyer Today, established in 2002, is a pro bono program that provides legal assistance on Martin Luther King Jr. Day to residents who otherwise may not be able to afford it. All 14 pro bono districts are participating this year with 35 walk-in sites, in addition to the statewide hotlines in English and Spanish. The program is sponsored by the Indiana State Bar Association and the Indiana Pro Bono Commission.

Pro Bono District 4, which serves Benton, Carroll, Clinton, Fountain, Montgomery, Tippecanoe, Warren, and White counties; District 9, which serves Fayette, Franklin, Rush, Union, and Wayne counties; District 10, which serves Green, Lawrence, Monroe, and Owen counties; and District 14, which serves Clark, Crawford, Floyd, Harrison, Orange, Scott, and Washington counties, told Indiana Lawyer this week they still have openings available for volunteers.

Tabitha Villarrubia, who manages the Spanish hotline, still needs bilingual volunteers. The Spanish hotline is statewide, but the attorneys must be able to come to the Indiana Bar Foundation office in Indianapolis to take the calls, she said. Interested attorneys can contact Villarrubia at Tabitha@villarrubialaw.com to sign up.

Lawyers interested in helping out the districts that still need volunteers can contact the following: Timothy Peterson in District 4 at tim.peterson@ilsi.net or (765) 423-5327; Tammy Hopkins in District 9 at d9probono@yahoo.com or (765) 935-5053; Diane Walker in District 10 at dist10probono@gmail.com or (812) 339-3610 from 8 a.m. to 1 p.m.; and Amy Roth in District 14 at probono14@sbcglobal.net or (812) 949-2292.

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. Paul Ogden doing a fine job of remembering his peer Gary Welsh with the post below and a call for an Indy gettogether to celebrate Gary .... http://www.ogdenonpolitics.com/2016/05/indiana-loses-citizen-journalist-giant.html Castaways of Indiana, unite!

  2. It's unfortunate that someone has attempted to hijack the comments to promote his own business. This is not an article discussing the means of preserving the record; no matter how it's accomplished, ethics and impartiality are paramount concerns. When a party to litigation contracts directly with a reporting firm, it creates, at the very least, the appearance of a conflict of interest. Court reporters, attorneys and judges are officers of the court and must abide by court rules as well as state and federal laws. Parties to litigation have no such ethical responsibilities. Would we accept insurance companies contracting with judges? This practice effectively shifts costs to the party who can least afford it while reducing costs for the party with the most resources. The success of our justice system depends on equal access for all, not just for those who have the deepest pockets.

  3. As a licensed court reporter in California, I have to say that I'm sure that at some point we will be replaced by speech recognition. However, from what I've seen of it so far, it's a lot farther away than three years. It doesn't sound like Mr. Hubbard has ever sat in a courtroom or a deposition room where testimony is being given. Not all procedures are the same, and often they become quite heated with the ends of question and beginning of answers overlapping. The human mind can discern the words to a certain extent in those cases, but I doubt very much that a computer can yet. There is also the issue of very heavy accents and mumbling. People speak very fast nowadays, and in order to do that, they generally slur everything together, they drop or swallow words like "the" and "and." Voice recognition might be able to produce some form of a transcript, but I'd be very surprised if it produces an accurate or verbatim transcript, as is required in the legal world.

  4. Really enjoyed the profile. Congratulations to Craig on living the dream, and kudos to the pros who got involved to help him realize the vision.

  5. Why in the world would someone need a person to correct a transcript when a realtime court reporter could provide them with a transcript (rough draft) immediately?

ADVERTISEMENT