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

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