ILNews

ISBA Women's Bench Bar Retreat March 4

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The 10th Annual Women’s Bench Bar Retreat, hosted by the Indiana State Bar Association’s Women in the Law Committee, will take place March 4 to 6 at Culver Cove Resort in Culver.

The weekend will include 18 options for educational programs, networking opportunities, and spa treatments for participants.

Topics include oral arguments with Indiana Court of Appeals judges; differences between state and federal courts with U.S. District Court Judge Tanya Walton Pratt and Marion Superior Judge Heather Welch; social media; the Indiana Model Civil Jury Instructions in Plain English; Top 10 Economic Indicators and After Shocks of Bankruptcy, How Bankruptcy Affects Clients of Non-bankruptcy Attorneys; tips for solo attorneys; information on the ISBA’s Mentor Match Program; information about domestic violence victims and how that can affect a legal practice; an update on the Mortgage Foreclosure Trial Court Assistance Project; and other hot topics.

Rooms are no longer available at the Culver Cove Resort, but space is still available to attend the conference. Registrations are due Feb. 25.

The Young Lawyers Section is offering two scholarships to YLS members to the conference that cover the conference registration fee and hotel expenses for two nights. Applications for the scholarship are due Feb. 14. More information on the requirements for the scholarships is available online.

For more information, contact Kim Czap at (800) 266-2581 or kczap@inbar.org. Click on the “10th Annual Women’s Bench Bar Retreat” link on the ISBA’s website, www.inbar.org, under “Upcoming Events” for the event’s program, including all speakers and programs, and rate information for spa treatments.
 

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