ILNews

New law school info session Aug. 9

Rebecca Berfanger
January 1, 2007
Keywords
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
Another information session has been scheduled for the Abraham Clark School of Law, a proposed new law school in Indianapolis. The meeting, which is open to the public, is Aug. 9 at 6:30 p.m. at Springhill Suites in Carmel, 11855 N. Meridian St.

Directions to the meeting and information about the law school are available on the proposed law school's Web site, www.abrahamclarklaw.com.

To participate in this information session, the school's founder Mark Montefiori requests that attendees send an e-mail with full name and phone number to abrahamclarklaw@sbcglobal.net and include a subject line that refers to the meeting.

The information session is intended for those who would like to offer ideas for the proposed school. The last meeting for the proposed school was in July at the same location.

An article about proposed new schools in Indiana was published in the July 25-Aug. 7, 2007, issue of Indiana Lawyer and is available at http://www.theindianalawyer.com/2k7/html/detail_page.asp?content=536.

While deans of other law schools in the state said they are not opposed to the idea of a new law school, they were uncertain that there was a need for a fifth law school in Indiana.

Instead of enrolling the traditional crop of law school students, Montefiori and others at the July information session suggested that this school could serve a different market of law student. Montefiori is a businessman with 13 years of experience in higher education for working adults, including college admissions, recruitment, marketing, and strategic planning.

Currently there are four law schools in Indiana: Indiana University School of Law - Indianapolis, Indiana University School of Law - Bloomington, University of Notre Dame Law School, and Valparaiso University School of Law. The University of St. Francis in Fort Wayne and Indiana State University in Terre Haute have also proposed new law schools in the past two years.
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. The practitioners and judges who hail E-filing as the Saviour of the West need to contain their respective excitements. E-filing is federal court requires the practitioner to cram his motion practice into pigeonholes created by IT people. Compound motions or those seeking alternative relief are effectively barred, unless the practitioner wants to receive a tart note from some functionary admonishing about the "problem". E-filing is just another method by which courts and judges transfer their burden to practitioners, who are the really the only powerless components of the system. Of COURSE it is easier for the court to require all of its imput to conform to certain formats, but this imposition does NOT improve the quality of the practice of law and does NOT improve the ability of the practitioner to advocate for his client or to fashion pleadings that exactly conform to his client's best interests. And we should be very wary of the disingenuous pablum about the costs. The courts will find a way to stick it to the practitioner. Lake County is a VERY good example of this rapaciousness. Any one who does not believe this is invited to review the various special fees that system imposes upon practitioners- as practitioners- and upon each case ON TOP of the court costs normal in every case manually filed. Jurisprudence according to Aldous Huxley.

  2. Any attorneys who practice in federal court should be able to say the same as I can ... efiling is great. I have been doing it in fed court since it started way back. Pacer has its drawbacks, but the ability to hit an e-docket and pull up anything and everything onscreen is a huge plus for a litigator, eps the sole practitioner, who lacks a filing clerk and the paralegal support of large firms. Were I an Indiana attorney I would welcome this great step forward.

  3. Can we get full disclosure on lobbyist's payments to legislatures such as Mr Buck? AS long as there are idiots that are disrespectful of neighbors and intent on shooting fireworks every night, some kind of regulations are needed.

  4. I am the mother of the child in this case. My silence on the matter was due to the fact that I filed, both in Illinois and Indiana, child support cases. I even filed supporting documentation with the Indiana family law court. Not sure whether this information was provided to the court of appeals or not. Wish the case was done before moving to Indiana, because no matter what, there is NO WAY the state of Illinois would have allowed an appeal on a child support case!

  5. "No one is safe when the Legislature is in session."

ADVERTISEMENT