ILNews

New family law conference seeks papers

Jennifer Nelson
January 1, 2008
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
A new Midwest family law conference is looking for a few good papers to kick off its inaugural meeting in Indianapolis. The conference, "Jazzing up Family Law," will be June 13 at Indiana University School of Law - Indianapolis.

The Midwest Family Law Consortium founding members - Indiana University School of Law - Indianapolis, University of Missouri - Kansas City, and William Mitchell College of Law - are seeking papers and presenters for its family law conference. Papers can be submitted by anyone involved in matters regarding family law, including attorneys, social workers, students, and government officials, and topics can include anything regarding family law, said Professor Jennifer A. Drobac, Indiana University School of Law - Indianapolis.

The topics should be able to be synthesized into a 20-minute presentation. Authors can either group together themselves to form a panel, or they can ask the consortium to include them in a panel with similar subjects.

Drobac said she would love to receive a large response from the community, law students, and from the other law schools in the state. The number of papers accepted will depend on the amount submitted.

Select papers will be reviewed by the Indiana Law Review board to be included in its publication. Those papers will need to be academic, include formal footnotes, and be suitable for law review publication, she said.

At this time, specific information about accommodations, fees, and potential CLE credits for the conference are still being worked out, Drobac said. Indianapolis will host the first conference, with sites around the Midwest hosting the conference in upcoming years.

Anyone who is interested in presenting a paper should e-mail Drobac at jdrobac@iupui.edu. The e-mail should include the title of the paper, an abstract, and resume, or the completed paper if applicable. Deadline to submit a paper for the conference is March 31.
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. Major social engineering imposed by judicial order well in advance of democratic change, has been the story of the whole post ww2 period. Contraception, desegregation, abortion, gay marriage: all rammed down the throats of Americans who didn't vote to change existing laws on any such thing, by the unelected lifetime tenure Supreme court heirarchs. Maybe people came to accept those things once imposed upon them, but, that's accommodation not acceptance; and surely not democracy. So let's quit lying to the kids telling them this is a democracy. Some sort of oligarchy, but no democracy that's for sure, and it never was. A bourgeois republic from day one.

  2. JD Massur, yes, brings to mind a similar stand at a Texas Mission in 1836. Or Vladivostok in 1918. As you seemingly gloat, to the victors go the spoils ... let the looting begin, right?

  3. I always wondered why high fence deer hunting was frowned upon? I guess you need to keep the population steady. If you don't, no one can enjoy hunting! Thanks for the post! Fence

  4. Whether you support "gay marriage" or not is not the issue. The issue is whether the SCOTUS can extract from an unmentionable somewhere the notion that the Constitution forbids government "interference" in the "right" to marry. Just imagine time-traveling to Philadelphia in 1787. Ask James Madison if the document he and his fellows just wrote allowed him- or forbade government to "interfere" with- his "right" to marry George Washington? He would have immediately- and justly- summoned the Sergeant-at-Arms to throw your sorry self out into the street. Far from being a day of liberation, this is a day of capitulation by the Rule of Law to the Rule of What's Happening Now.

  5. With today's ruling, AG Zoeller's arguments in the cases of Obamacare and Same-sex Marriage can be relegated to the ash heap of history. 0-fer

ADVERTISEMENT