ILNews

Alternative legal careers series starts Thursday

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana University Maurer School of Law's fall Career Choices series kicks off Thursday with a focus on using a law degree to work in the federal government.

Baker & Daniels attorney Suzanne O'Shea, who practices in health care and life sciences initiatives, will answer questions from a moderator and attendees about working in the federal government with a law degree. O'Shea worked for 21 years as a regulatory counsel for the Food and Drug Administration, as a product classification officer in the Office of Combination Products, and as regulatory counsel in the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research. O'Shea is a 1978 graduate of the law school.

The session is from noon to 1 p.m. in Room 213 at the law school in Bloomington and is open to the public. Indiana law students need to RSVP because pizza will be provided to students.

This is the first of several sessions focusing on alternative legal careers. The series started in the spring in response to the tough job market and economy. Future scheduled sessions include family law/mediation, prosecutors, and legal aid/public defenders.

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