ILNews

Law students complete diversity program

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A program implemented by the state to help minority, low income, or educationally disadvantaged college graduates who will attend law school and plan to practice in Indiana has wrapped up its annual event.

This year's six-week Indiana Conference for Legal Education Opportunity Summer Institute included 30 students and took place at Indiana University School of Law - Indianapolis, where the majority of the students will be starting in the fall.

Names and biographical information on the students from all over Indiana, around the country, and a few international students can be found at http://courts.in.gov.

During the course, students receive advice on what to expect in their first year of law school, how to succeed as students, and how to network and prepare for their careers.

The Indiana Supreme Court's Division of State Court Administration provides staff support and financial management for ICLEO.

ICLEO students are eligible for an annual stipend ranging from $6,500 - $9,000, which could be awarded for up to three successive years if the student remains eligible.

While in law school and after graduation, ICLEO fellows have a network of mentors who are ICLEO alumni and others who support the program's efforts.

ADVERTISEMENT

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