ILNews

Reagan administration counsel to participate in symposium at McKinney

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A former Reagan administration official will join the group of academic, government and business leaders making presentations next month at Indiana University Robert H. McKinney School of Law’s symposium on the Law and Financial Crisis.

Peter J. Wallison, who was general counsel for the U.S. Department of the Treasury and later White House counsel during the Ronald Reagan administration, will participate on a panel examining the law’s role in causing the Great Recession.

Wallison, currently the Arthur F. Burns Fellow in Financial Policy Studies at the American Enterprise Institute, was tapped to serve on the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission, created as part of the 2009 Fraud and Enforcement Recovery Act. His recent scholarship includes the paper, “Did the ‘Repeal’ of Glass-Steagall Have Any Role in the Financial Crisis? Not Guilty; Not Even Close.”

The symposium, sponsored by the Indiana Law Review, will be from 8 a.m. to 5:15 p.m. April 5 in Inlow Hall. Attendees can earn continuing legal education credit.

Former U.S. Sen. Evan Bayh will give the keynote address at 8:30 a.m. He was chairman of the Subcommittee on Security and International Trade and Finance of the U.S. Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs.

Also, Joe Hogsett, U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Indiana, will be part of a panel that considers the law’s effectiveness in addressing the financial crisis.

The symposium will be preceded by a dinner on April 4. Kevin T. Kabat, vice chairman and CEO of Fifth Third Bancorp, will give a speech entitled “Perspectives on the Financial Crisis.”

For more details or the register for the dinner and symposium, visit indylaw.indiana.edu/ilr/symposiumreg.htm.
 

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