ILNews

Mass. chief justice to speak at law school

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
The Indiana Supreme Court Lecture, "Anatomy of Freedom: John Adams on a Global Scale," will feature as speaker the first female chief justice of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court. The lecture begins at 5 p.m. March 25 at the Wynne Courtroom at Indiana University School of Law - Indianapolis.

Margaret H. Marshall was appointed chief justice of the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts in 1999. Originally from South Africa, she came to the U.S. to pursue her master's degree at Harvard University. Because of her activities opposing apartheid in South Africa, she was unable to return to her native country.

She later earned her J.D. at Yale Law School in 1976 and practiced law in Boston for 16 years; she became a U.S. citizen in 1978.

Chief Justice Marshall serves on the boards of the Conferences of Chief Justices and the National Center for State Courts. She was a trustee for The Africa Fund, a member of the board of Africa News, and serves as trustee of Southern Africa Legal Services Foundation.

The lecture is free and open to the public. One hour of CLE credit is available and organizers recommend those interested in attending RSVP by calling (317) 278-3400. For more information, contact Shaun Ingram, slingram@iupui.edu or (317) 278-4789.
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