ILNews

Indiana deans support Georgia's rule of law

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
Two Indiana law school deans joined 67 other deans in signing a statement of support for international norms of conduct and the rule of law in the Caucasus region in light of the recent violence between Russia and the Republic of Georgia.

"The actions of Russia threaten ... the people of Georgia and the Georgians' commitment to values we hold fundamental and daily teach to our students," the deans wrote in their letter. Recipients of the statement include the U.S. Department of State, numerous congressional delegations, and political and academic figures in Tbilisi, Georgia.

Dean Jay Conison of Valparaiso University School of Law, who signed the statement, participated in the Conference on Judicial Independence and Legal Education in Tbilisi in July that was organized by the American Bar Association Rule of Law Initiative and the U.S. Agency for International Development.

Indiana Lawyer reported about Conison's experience in the Aug. 6-19, 2008, edition of the paper.

Conison is vice chair of the ABA committee responsible for accreditation of law schools in the United States and incorporated his experience into discussions about the importance of law school accreditation. Another dean who signed, Veryl V. Miles, dean of Columbus School of Law at Catholic University, was also at the conference.

A spokesman for Conison said he and others at that conference have been in contact with their legal counterparts in the Republic of Georgia.

Indiana University School of Law - Bloomington's dean Lauren Robel also signed the statement.
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