12/4 - The Future of the Courts & Legal Profession: A Statewide Bench-Bar Symposium

Sponsored by
Back to TopPrintE-mail
Wednesday  December 4, 2013 
8:45 AM  EST

Date: Wednesday, Dec. 4, 2013
Time (local time): 8:45 a.m.  to 4 p.m.

Credit: 4.8 hrs. CLE/1.3 hrs. Ethics

Cost:
$135 ISBA members
$225 non-ISBA members

Location: JW Marriott, Indianapolis

Provider: Indiana State Bar Assocation (ISBA)

More Details: The Indiana State Bar and the Indiana Judicial Center have joined forces to develop a program of interest to both judicial officers and attorneys. Breakout sessions will address emerging technologies, future of civil and criminal law in Indiana, managing unconscious bias, outlook for legal education and so much more! You can earn up to 4.8 hours of CLE (to include 1.3 hours of Ethics). Note: On the evening before the conference, Tuesday, Dec. 3, the Young Lawyers Section will host its annual Judicial Reception at the JW Marriott from 5 to 7 p.m.
A block of rooms at the JW Marriott for Dec. 3 is available to members attending the Statewide Bench-Bar Symposium on Dec. 4. To take advantage of the special ISBA room rate of $149, call 1.866.704.6162 with the group code "ISBA" or reserve your room online at http://tinyurl.com/JW-ISBA-room-reservation-Dec-3. Please note: The cut-off date for this special rate has been extended to Nov. 25, so make your reservation now! Visit www.inbar.org for more information.

Contact Information:
Indiana State Bar Association
(317) 639-5465 or Toll Free (800)-266-2581
clong@inbar.org
www.inbar.org, click under events for registration and additional information
 

Back to Events
Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. The $320,000 is the amount the school spent in litigating two lawsuits: One to release the report involving John Trimble (as noted in the story above) and one defending the discrimination lawsuit. The story above does not mention the amount spent to defend the discrimination suit, that's why the numbers don't match. Thanks for reading.

  2. $160k? Yesterday the figure was $320k. Which is it Indiana Lawyer. And even more interesting, which well connected law firm got the (I am guessing) $320k, six time was the fired chancellor received. LOL. (From yesterday's story, which I guess we were expected to forget overnight ... "According to records obtained by the Journal & Courier, Purdue spent $161,812, beginning in July 2012, in a state open records lawsuit and $168,312, beginning in April 2013, for defense in a federal lawsuit. Much of those fees were spent battling court orders to release an independent investigation by attorney John Trimble that found Purdue could have handled the forced retirement better")

  3. The numbers are harsh; 66 - 24 in the House, 40 - 10 in the Senate. And it is an idea pushed by the Democrats. Dead end? Ummm not necessarily. Just need to go big rather than go home. Nuclear option. Give it to the federal courts, the federal courts will ram this down our throats. Like that other invented right of the modern age, feticide. Rights too precious to be held up by 2000 years of civilization hang in the balance. Onward!

  4. I'm currently seeing someone who has a charge of child pornography possession, he didn't know he had it because it was attached to a music video file he downloaded when he was 19/20 yrs old and fought it for years until he couldn't handle it and plead guilty of possession. He's been convicted in Illinois and now lives in Indiana. Wouldn't it be better to give them a chance to prove to the community and their families that they pose no threat? He's so young and now because he was being a kid and downloaded music at a younger age, he has to pay for it the rest of his life? It's unfair, he can't live a normal life, and has to live in fear of what people can say and do to him because of something that happened 10 years ago? No one deserves that, and no one deserves to be labeled for one mistake, he got labeled even though there was no intent to obtain and use the said content. It makes me so sad to see someone I love go through this and it makes me holds me back a lot because I don't know how people around me will accept him...second chances should be given to those under the age of 21 at least so they can be given a chance to live a normal life as a productive member of society.

  5. It's just an ill considered remark. The Sup Ct is inherently political, as it is a core part of government, and Marbury V Madison guaranteed that it would become ever more so Supremely thus. So her remark is meaningless and she just should have not made it.... what she could have said is that Congress is a bunch of lazys and cowards who wont do their jobs so the hard work of making laws clear, oftentimes stops with the Sups sorting things out that could have been resolved by more competent legislation. That would have been a more worthwhile remark and maybe would have had some relevance to what voters do, since voters cant affect who gets appointed to the supremely un-democratic art III courts.

ADVERTISEMENT