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. Great observation Smith. By my lights, speaking personally, they already have. They counted my religious perspective in a pro-life context as a symptom of mental illness and then violated all semblance of due process to banish me for life from the Indiana bar. The headline reveals the truth of the Hoosier elite's animus. Details here: Denied 2016 petition for cert (this time around): (“2016Pet”) Amicus brief 2016: (“2016Amici”) As many may recall, I was banned for five years for failing to "repent" of my religious views on life and the law when a bar examiner demanded it of me, resulting in a time out to reconsider my "clinging." The time out did not work, so now I am banned for life. Here is the five year time out order: Denied 2010 petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): (“2010Pet”) Read this quickly if you are going to read it, the elites will likely demand it be pulled down or pile comments on to bury it. (As they have buried me.)

  2. if the proabortion zealots and intolerant secularist anti-religious bigots keep on shutting down every hint of religious observance in american society, or attacking every ounce of respect that the state may have left for it, they may just break off their teeth.

  3. "drug dealers and traffickers need to be locked up". "we cannot afford just to continue to build prisons". "drug abuse is strangling many families and communities". "establishing more treatment and prevention programs will also be priorities". Seems to be what politicians have been saying for at least three decades now. If these are the most original thoughts these two have on the issues of drug trafficking and drug abuse, then we're no closer to solving the problem than we were back in the 90s when crack cocaine was the epidemic. We really need to begin demanding more original thought from those we elect to office. We also need to begin to accept that each of us is part of the solution to a problem that government cannot solve.

  4. What is with the bias exclusion of the only candidate that made sense, Rex Bell? The Democrat and Republican Party have created this problem, why on earth would anyone believe they are able to fix it without pushing government into matters it doesn't belong?

  5. This is what happens when daddy hands over a business to his moron son and thinks that everything will be ok. this bankruptcy is nothing more than Gary pulling the strings to never pay the creditors that he and his son have ripped off. they are scum and they know it.