Law School Briefs - 9/14/11

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
Law School Briefs

Law School Briefs is Indiana Lawyer’s section highlighting news from law schools in Indiana. While IL has always covered law school news and continues to keep up with law school websites and press releases for updates, we gladly accept submissions for this section from law students, professors, alumni, and others who want to share law school-related news. If you’d like to submit news or a photo from an event, please send it to Jenny Montgomery at, along with contact information for any follow-up questions at least two weeks in advance of the issue date.

IU biomedical conference

Indiana University School of Law – Indianapolis has planned its inaugural Biomedical and Health Industry Law Compliance Conference for Sept. 21. The keynote speaker is Joyce R. Branda, director of the Fraud Section of the U.S. Department of Justice’s Commercial Litigation Branch. Branda oversees civil fraud matters and federal litigation under the False Claims Act and other laws.

Topics on the agenda include health care reform, health care-life sciences business relationships, and HIPAA privacy.

The fee to attend – $50 for government attorneys and $100 for private attorneys – covers six hours of CLE, lunch, and refreshments. Attorneys not interested in pursuing CLE may register for $50. Up to 10 students will be allowed to attend, on a first-come, first-served basis. For more information, contact Carsandra Knight at 317-274-1912 or at Additional information is available on the “upcoming events” page of the school’s website at

IP colloquium

Four scholars from around the globe will visit the Indiana University Maurer School of Law this fall to share their recent work during the Center for Intellectual Property Research IP Colloquium.

Titled “Protecting Intellectual Property: A Global Perspective,” the colloquium will focus on recent developments in IP law in the United States and other countries. The following people are scheduled to speak:

On Sept. 8, Mira Sundara Rajan, an independent scholar and IP consultant and honorary member of Oxford University Magdalen College, spoke on the subject: “Authors or Auteurs? Moral Rights in Film.”

Carys Craig of York University’s Osgoode Hall Law School will present “Copyright, Communication, and IP Culture: Towards a Relational Theory of Copyright Law” on Sept 28.

Pierre-Emmanuel Moyse, McGill University Faculty of Law, will address “Intellectual Property Rights and ‘Abuse of Rights’ Theory, a Jurisprudential Inquiry” on Oct. 13.

Peter Yu, Drake University Law School, will discuss “The Graduated Response” on Oct. 27.

Daniel Gervais, Vanderbilt Law School, will talk about “The Changing Landscape of Collective Rights Management” on Nov. 3.

All talks are scheduled to begin at 1:30 p.m. and end at 3:25 p.m. in Room 213 of the Maurer School of Law. Indiana continuing legal education credit has been applied for. The public is welcome, and more information about the colloquium and the Center for Intellectual Property Research can be found on the center’s website:•


Post a comment to this story

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
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I think the cops are doing a great job locking up criminals. The Murder rates in the inner cities are skyrocketing and you think that too any people are being incarcerated. Maybe we need to lock up more of them. We have the ACLU, BLM, NAACP, Civil right Division of the DOJ, the innocent Project etc. We have court system with an appeal process that can go on for years, with attorneys supplied by the government. I'm confused as to how that translates into the idea that the defendants are not being represented properly. Maybe the attorneys need to do more Pro-Bono work

  2. We do not have 10% of our population (which would mean about 32 million) incarcerated. It's closer to 2%.

  3. If a class action suit or other manner of retribution is possible, count me in. I have email and voicemail from the man. He colluded with opposing counsel, I am certain. My case was damaged so severely it nearly lost me everything and I am still paying dearly.

  4. There's probably a lot of blame that can be cast around for Indiana Tech's abysmal bar passage rate this last February. The folks who decided that Indiana, a state with roughly 16,000 to 18,000 attorneys, needs a fifth law school need to question the motives that drove their support of this project. Others, who have been "strong supporters" of the law school, should likewise ask themselves why they believe this institution should be supported. Is it because it fills some real need in the state? Or is it, instead, nothing more than a resume builder for those who teach there part-time? And others who make excuses for the students' poor performance, especially those who offer nothing more than conspiracy theories to back up their claims--who are they helping? What evidence do they have to support their posturing? Ultimately, though, like most everything in life, whether one succeeds or fails is entirely within one's own hands. At least one student from Indiana Tech proved this when he/she took and passed the February bar. A second Indiana Tech student proved this when they took the bar in another state and passed. As for the remaining 9 who took the bar and didn't pass (apparently, one of the students successfully appealed his/her original score), it's now up to them (and nobody else) to ensure that they pass on their second attempt. These folks should feel no shame; many currently successful practicing attorneys failed the bar exam on their first try. These same attorneys picked themselves up, dusted themselves off, and got back to the rigorous study needed to ensure they would pass on their second go 'round. This is what the Indiana Tech students who didn't pass the first time need to do. Of course, none of this answers such questions as whether Indiana Tech should be accredited by the ABA, whether the school should keep its doors open, or, most importantly, whether it should have even opened its doors in the first place. Those who promoted the idea of a fifth law school in Indiana need to do a lot of soul-searching regarding their decisions. These same people should never be allowed, again, to have a say about the future of legal education in this state or anywhere else. Indiana already has four law schools. That's probably one more than it really needs. But it's more than enough.

  5. This man Steve Hubbard goes on any online post or forum he can find and tries to push his company. He said court reporters would be obsolete a few years ago, yet here we are. How does he have time to search out every single post about court reporters and even spy in private court reporting forums if his company is so successful???? Dude, get a life. And back to what this post was about, I agree that some national firms cause a huge problem.