ILNews

Chief justices to discuss court issues

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Supreme Court Chief Justice Randall T. Shepard and other jurists from the Midwest will talk about important issues affecting their respective courts during a panel discussion Sept. 9 at Indiana University School of Law - Indianapolis.

Chief Justice Shepard; Chief Justice Thomas J. Moyer of the Supreme Court of Ohio; and former Chief Justice Laura Denvir Stith of the Supreme Court of Missouri will address issues including access to justice, regulation of the legal profession, relations with the executive and legislative branches, and other matters. If time permits, the panelists will take questions from the audience.

IU - Indianapolis law professor Cynthia A. Baker will moderate the panel; the American Constitution Society's Indianapolis Lawyer Chapter will host the event. The discussion is from noon to 1:30 p.m. in the Wynne Courtroom, 530 W. New York St., Indianapolis. The event is free and open to the public and people are encouraged to RSVP.

For more information, contact Dino Pollock at (312) 519-8573 or illinidp43@yahoo.com

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