ILNews

IBA: Law Students Learn What They Need to Know

From IndyBar
November 24, 2010
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

By Sarah Garrison, IndyBar Review Marketing Director

Have you ever wished there was a manual for your relationships; your kids; your job? Law students are no exception, so the IBA created the What You Need to Know series.

Currently broken into three programs, throughout the school year, these sessions are carefully constructed to offer no-nonsense concepts and strategies on the tough topics facing all students including; transitioning into law school; how to prepare for exams and craft the ‘A’ answer; and of course facing the rigors of the bar exam.

Earlier this year, the first two sessions on transitioning into law school and succeeding on exams were very well received. Holly Wanzer of Jocham Hardin was once again thanked by a grateful student body, toting that her programs were the ‘best sessions on the subjects’ of the many they had attended and that were offered by the school. She also repeats her sessions for the evening students, so no one misses out on her great advice.

The final session of the series, What You Need to Know about the Bar Exam, will be held in March as a part of the Spring Bar Application Clinic as well as in June for summer associates at local firms. A valuable part of the clinic, which helps students complete their bar applications, students will get help deciphering the lengthy requirements for the bar application, a breakdown of the subject matters on the exam, and advice on preparing for exam, namely through the utilizing IndyBar Review, the premiere bar review course for IN bar candidates.

So while there will always be questions about life and its many surprises, law students can take comfort that the IndyBar has taken the guess work out of and will continue to offer guidance on the ways of law school and the Indiana bar exam.•

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

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