ILNews

Law graduates return home to address Class of 2014

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Alumni of Indiana law schools will be congratulating the new classes of attorneys and offering words of advice during upcoming Class of 2014 commencement ceremonies aross the state.

Indiana University Maurer School of Law, Indiana University Robert H. McKinney School of Law and Valparaiso University Law School have all tapped distinguished alumni to deliver keynote addresses.

The University of Notre Dame Law School will host a diploma and hooding ceremony for its graduates at the Hesburgh Library Reflecting Pool May 17. The university-wide commencement ceremony will be May 18.

Indiana University Maurer School of Law will hold its graduation recognition ceremony May 10 in the IU Auditorium on the Bloomington campus. Gonzalo Curiel, a 1979 graduate and judge of the U.S. District Court, Southern District of California, will be the keynote speaker.

At the Indiana University Robert H. McKinney School of Law, the commencement ceremony will be in the Sagamore Ballroom at the Indiana Convention Center, also May 10. U.S. Rep. Susan Brooks, a 1985 graduate, will deliver the keynote address.

Valparaiso University Law School will hold a commencement ceremony May 18 in the University Chapel on campus. Joyce Thompson, a 1999 graduate and current associate director in the enforcement department of the National Collegiate Athletic Association, will deliver the commencement address.

Also, 1976 Valparaiso University Law School graduate Marie Failinger will receive an honorary degree in recognition for her work in legal services and academia.  

 

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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. As one of the many consumers affected by this breach, I found my bank data had been lifted and used to buy over $200 of various merchandise in New York. I did a pretty good job of tracing the purchases to stores around a college campus just from the info on my bank statement. Hm. Mr. Hill, I would like my $200 back! It doesn't belong to the state, in my opinion. Give it back to the consumers affected. I had to freeze my credit and take out data protection, order a new debit card and wait until it arrived. I deserve something for my trouble!

  2. Don't we have bigger issues to concern ourselves with?

  3. Anyone who takes the time to study disciplinary and bar admission cases in Indiana ... much of which is, as a matter of course and by intent, off the record, would have a very difficult time drawing lines that did not take into account things which are not supposed to matter, such as affiliations, associations, associates and the like. Justice Hoosier style is a far departure than what issues in most other parts of North America. (More like Central America, in fact.) See, e.g., http://www.theindianalawyer.com/indiana-attorney-illegally-practicing-in-florida-suspended-for-18-months/PARAMS/article/42200 When while the Indiana court system end the cruel practice of killing prophets of due process and those advocating for blind justice?

  4. Wouldn't this call for an investigation of Government corruption? Chief Justice Loretta Rush, wrote that the case warranted the high court’s review because the method the Indiana Court of Appeals used to reach its decision was “a significant departure from the law.” Specifically, David wrote that the appellate panel ruled after reweighing of the evidence, which is NOT permissible at the appellate level. **But yet, they look the other way while an innocent child was taken by a loving mother who did nothing wrong"

  5. Different rules for different folks....

ADVERTISEMENT