ILNews

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.

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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. The practitioners and judges who hail E-filing as the Saviour of the West need to contain their respective excitements. E-filing is federal court requires the practitioner to cram his motion practice into pigeonholes created by IT people. Compound motions or those seeking alternative relief are effectively barred, unless the practitioner wants to receive a tart note from some functionary admonishing about the "problem". E-filing is just another method by which courts and judges transfer their burden to practitioners, who are the really the only powerless components of the system. Of COURSE it is easier for the court to require all of its imput to conform to certain formats, but this imposition does NOT improve the quality of the practice of law and does NOT improve the ability of the practitioner to advocate for his client or to fashion pleadings that exactly conform to his client's best interests. And we should be very wary of the disingenuous pablum about the costs. The courts will find a way to stick it to the practitioner. Lake County is a VERY good example of this rapaciousness. Any one who does not believe this is invited to review the various special fees that system imposes upon practitioners- as practitioners- and upon each case ON TOP of the court costs normal in every case manually filed. Jurisprudence according to Aldous Huxley.

  2. Any attorneys who practice in federal court should be able to say the same as I can ... efiling is great. I have been doing it in fed court since it started way back. Pacer has its drawbacks, but the ability to hit an e-docket and pull up anything and everything onscreen is a huge plus for a litigator, eps the sole practitioner, who lacks a filing clerk and the paralegal support of large firms. Were I an Indiana attorney I would welcome this great step forward.

  3. Can we get full disclosure on lobbyist's payments to legislatures such as Mr Buck? AS long as there are idiots that are disrespectful of neighbors and intent on shooting fireworks every night, some kind of regulations are needed.

  4. I am the mother of the child in this case. My silence on the matter was due to the fact that I filed, both in Illinois and Indiana, child support cases. I even filed supporting documentation with the Indiana family law court. Not sure whether this information was provided to the court of appeals or not. Wish the case was done before moving to Indiana, because no matter what, there is NO WAY the state of Illinois would have allowed an appeal on a child support case!

  5. "No one is safe when the Legislature is in session."

ADVERTISEMENT