ILNews

IU - Indy to host Summer Legal Institute

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Central Indiana students who have an interest in the law will get an up-close-and-personal look at it through an intensive summer program beginning June 6 at Indiana University School of Law – Indianapolis.

Just The Beginning Foundation, a nonprofit organization of lawyers, judges, and other citizens dedicated to developing an interest in the law among a diverse group of people, is presenting the free program to 35 Indianapolis-area diverse and underserved students. The weeklong Summer Legal Institute hopes to inspire students to consider and pursue a career in the legal field.

JTBF is partnering with U.S. Judge Tanya Walton Pratt, Bose McKinney & Evans, Barnes & Thornburg, Ice Miller, Reach for Youth Inc., and the law school to host various parts of the institute, including a networking reception, lunches with attorneys, and negotiation exercises, said Dana Horst, director of development and marketing for JTBF. Judge Pratt will host a Federal Courts Day June 7.

This is the second year JTBF has conducted the Summer Legal Institute in Indianapolis. The first program was held in June 2010. Horst said the organization hopes to make Indianapolis an annual program site for the Summer Legal Institute.

A few openings remain available for students. Those interested in attending should download the application and send it to the program directors at summerprograms@jtbf.org. Applications must be received by noon on June 3. Those interested in volunteering can contact the program directors or Horst at dhorst@jtbf.org.
 

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