ILNews

IBA: Mark Calendars for Sedona, Arizona

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indianapolis Bar Association is going on the road with CLE to stunning Sedona, Ariz., November 15-17, 2012. Based at Enchantment Resort, the getaway provides rest, relaxation and six hours of continuing legal education.

The Enchantment Resort, rated by Travel+Leisure as one of the 100 best resorts in America, combines the unique natural beauty of the Southwest with superb accommodations, dining, spa services and exciting activities. Those attending will enjoy an opening night cocktail party and dinner on Thursday, November 15 followed by two mornings of CLE courses for attorneys from a variety of disciplines including family law and criminal law. Free afternoons will leave time to experience all the area has to offer.

Special room rates at Enchantment Resort will be available for event attendees. The cost for a Casita Bedroom/Deluxe Studio will be $189 per night, plus a $25 resort fee daily and a one-time porterage fee of $12 per person. Casita Junior Suites are $269 per night, plus fees; and Casita Suites (one bedroom) are $403 per night, plus fees.

Registration for the 2012 CLE Getaway, anticipated to begin at $375, will open in April. Sponsorship opportunities are open now and start at $1,000, including registration for the conference.•

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