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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  2. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  3. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  4. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

  5. Here's an idea...how about we MORE heavily regulate the law schools to reduce the surplus of graduates, driving starting salaries up for those new grads, so that we can all pay our insane amount of student loans off in a reasonable amount of time and then be able to afford to do pro bono & low-fee work? I've got friends in other industries, radiology for example, and their schools accept a very limited number of students so there will never be a glut of new grads and everyone's pay stays high. For example, my radiologist friend's school accepted just six new students per year.

ADVERTISEMENT