A new career direction

February 2, 2009
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
Update: The seminar on jobs in politics has been rescheduled to April 8.

Ever wish you could do something else with your law degree, but you don’t know where to start? Feeling burnt out on practicing law, worried about your current job situation, or maybe you just were laid off? A new series at Indiana University Maurer School of Law – Bloomington may be just what you need to parlay your law degree into a new career.

The law school is presenting a series of various alternative legal careers to students and the public. The series kicked off last month and has three sessions left – careers in publishing, communications, marking, consulting, and development Feb. 11; higher education Feb. 25; and politics March 11. Each event will have panelists relevant to the day’s topic and Bloomington Mayor Mark Kruzan is on board for the politics session.

Caroline Dowd-Higgins, director of Career and Professional Development at the law school, said the series was launched this semester in response to the especially tough job market in this economy.

All the sessions take place in the Moot Court Room in the law school and begin at noon. Students get pizza; the public needs to bring in their own lunch. Reservations are encouraged and should be sent to Dowd-Higgins at cdowd@indiana.edu.

Given today’s economy, I imagine this series will generate more interest from students and the public than it would have if it was launched a few years ago. Dowd-Higgins said the first event in January was very well attended and many students showed up despite the fact classes were cancelled due to snow.

If this sounds like something you’d be interested in, more information on the sessions is on the law school’s Web site under “Events.”
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
  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