ILNews

Memory of Fort Wayne attorney honored with endowed scholarship at Indiana Tech Law School

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Fort Wayne law firm of Shambaugh Kast Beck & Williams LLP has endowed a $25,000 scholarship to Indiana Tech Law School, giving a boost to the law school which welcomed its inaugural class in August 2013.

Dean Peter Alexander said the funds would be used to create a prize for the law student who finishes the second year ranked first in the class. The dean expects more local firms to follow Shambaugh Kast’s lead. Already, he noted, the school is working with another group of donors to endow a scholarship for the top student at the end of the first year of study.

“We are fortunate that there are several groups who want to support the law school and we appreciate all of their gifts,” Alexander said.

The Michael Kast Prize honors one of the firm’s founding partners who died in 2013. Kast joined attorney William Shambaugh in 1961 to form Shambaugh & Kast. Ed Beck, partner, described Kast as a terrific lawyer who encouraged young lawyers and took great pleasure in their success.

 “As a firm, we wanted to honor the memory of our partner, mentor and friend, Mike Kast,” Beck said. “We could think of no better way than to support the fine work of Indiana Tech Law School and to provide financial assistance to students who, through hard work, diligence and passion for the law, achieve distinction of being first in their class.”

Shambaugh Kast is the first local law firm to create a scholarship at Indiana Tech Law School. Muncie attorney Eric Welch endowed the first scholarship at the law school in 2013.

The Michael Kast Prize will be awarded after the class rankings are calculated for the spring 2015 semester.





 
 

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. Just an aside, but regardless of the outcome, I 'm proud of Judge William Hughes. He was the original magistrate on the Home place issue. He ruled for Home Place, and was primaried by Brainard for it. Their tool Poindexter failed to unseat Hughes, who won support for his honesty and courage throughout the county, and he was reelected Judge of Hamilton County's Superior Court. You can still stand for something and survive. Thanks, Judge Hughes!

  2. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  3. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  4. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  5. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

ADVERTISEMENT