Committee begins search for new dean of Valparaiso Law School

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The process of finding a new dean for the Valparaiso Law School has begun. Law professor Rosalie Levinson is chairing the search committee, and the national executive search firm Witt/Kieffer has been retained to assist.

The search committee expects to have a new dean in place by the fall of 2014.

Former Valparaiso Law Dean Jay Conison stepped down in March to become dean of the Charlotte School of Law in North Carolina. Valparaiso professor of law Ivan Bodensteiner has been appointed as interim dean.

A job description for the Valparaiso position is posted on the Witt/Kieffer website. It notes the law school is seeking applications and nominations for the position of dean. Relevant professional experience may include leadership within a law school, law firm, the judiciary, government or business sector as well as law school teaching and legal scholarship.

The law school is seeking a dean who will take a leadership role in several areas including promoting and implementing the new vision and curriculum effective this fall; attracting resources; playing an active role in developing more career opportunities for students; and taking a collaborative approach to governance.

Levinson has invited Valparaiso Law alumni to participate in the search by alerting the committee to “outstanding leaders in the legal community who either are or might become interested in leading our law school.”

In addition to Valparaiso, Indiana University Maurer School of Law is continuing its search for a new dean. Indiana University Robert H. McKinney School of Law named Andrew Klein, chief of staff in the Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis Chancellor’s Cabinet, as dean to take over when Dean Gary Roberts steps down in June.


Post a comment to this story

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
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Lori, you must really love wedding cake stories like this one ... happy enuf ending for you?

  2. This new language about a warning has not been discussed at previous meetings. It's not available online. Since it must be made public knowledge before the vote, does anyone know exactly what it says? Further, this proposal was held up for 5 weeks because members Carol and Lucy insisted that all terms used be defined. So now, definitions are unnecessary and have not been inserted? Beyond these requirements, what is the logic behind giving one free pass to discriminators? Is that how laws work - break it once and that's ok? Just don't do it again? Three members of Carmel's council have done just about everything they can think of to prohibit an anti-discrimination ordinance in Carmel, much to Brainard's consternation, I'm told. These three 'want to be so careful' that they have failed to do what at least 13 other communities, including Martinsville, have already done. It's not being careful. It's standing in the way of what 60% of Carmel residents want. It's hurting CArmel in thT businesses have refused to locate because the council has not gotten with the program. And now they want to give discriminatory one free shot to do so. Unacceptable. Once three members leave the council because they lost their races, the Carmel council will have unanimous approval of the ordinance as originally drafted, not with a one free shot to discriminate freebie. That happens in January 2016. Why give a freebie when all we have to do is wait 3 months and get an ordinance with teeth from Day 1? If nothing else, can you please get s copy from Carmel and post it so we can see what else has changed in the proposal?

  3. Here is an interesting 2012 law review article for any who wish to dive deeper into this subject matter: Excerpt: "Judicial interpretation of the ADA has extended public entity liability to licensing agencies in the licensure and certification of attorneys.49 State bar examiners have the authority to conduct fitness investigations for the purpose of determining whether an applicant is a direct threat to the public.50 A “direct threat” is defined as “a significant risk to the health or safety of others that cannot be eliminated by a modification of policies, practices or procedures, or by the provision of auxiliary aids or services as provided by § 35.139.”51 However, bar examiners may not utilize generalizations or stereotypes about the applicant’s disability in concluding that an applicant is a direct threat.52"

  4. We have been on the waiting list since 2009, i was notified almost 4 months ago that we were going to start receiving payments and we still have received nothing. Every time I call I'm told I just have to wait it's in the lawyers hands. Is everyone else still waiting?

  5. I hope you dont mind but to answer my question. What amendment does this case pretain to?