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

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