ILNews

Proposed law school info session Wednesday

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
There will be an information session July 11 for those interested in the Abraham Clark School of Law, a for-profit school proposed for Indianapolis. The session will begin at 6 p.m. at Springhill Suites, 11855 N. Meridian St., Carmel.

The law school is being started by Mark Montefiori, a businessman with 13 years of experience in higher education. It's still early in the planning stages, but the goal is for the school to have an emphasis on teaching business people about the law and offer part-time and full-time tracks for students.

The meeting is for the purpose of presenting the plan to individuals who may be interested in helping with the startup as a board member, director, or in some other support capacity. Montefiori emphasized the meeting is not for recruiting students. The school can't do that until it receives the proper state and American Bar Association approvals.

To register for the information session, e-mail full name and daytime phone number to Montefiori at abrahamclarklaw@sbcglobal.net with the subject "Registering for the free Public Information Session."

More information about the school is available at http://abrahamclarklaw.com. The Web site also includes positions that would be available if the school gets the proper funding and accreditations.

Currently, Indianapolis only has one law school, Indiana University School of Law - Indianapolis. It is the largest city in the United States with only one law school. Statewide, there are three other law schools: Indiana University School of Law - Bloomington, University of Notre Dame Law School, and Valparaiso University School of Law. Two other law schools have been proposed in recent years: one at Indiana State University in Terre Haute and another in Ft. Wayne.
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