ILNews

Students help with tax prep; lecture discusses colleges' decisions

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrint
Law School Briefs

Law School Briefs is Indiana Lawyer’s section highlighting news from law schools in Indiana. While IL has always covered law school news and continues to keep up with law school websites and press releases for updates, we gladly accept submissions for this section from law students, professors, alumni, and others who want to share law school-related news. If you’d like to submit news or a photo from an event, please send it to Rebecca Berfanger at rberfanger@ibj.com, along with contact information for any follow-up questions at least two weeks in advance of the issue date.

Students help withtax preparation

Students from the four Indiana law schools are participating in the Internal Revenue Service’s Volunteers in Tax Assistance program during the 2011 tax season. The requirements to participate in the programs vary, and some programs may require agencies to refer clients to them. All four programs have students working directly with clients under supervision of their professors and tax attorneys. Clients must be low- to moderate-income, generally earning $49,000 or less per year.

In Bloomington, Indiana University’s Maurer School of Law and Kelley School of Business are teaming up for the VITA program. Walk-in clients can get advice at the law school, 211 S. Indiana Ave., Room 121, on Monday and Thursday evenings through March 10. Service is provided from 5 to 8 p.m.

Valparaiso University School of Law’s VITA program will provide tax assistance on Saturdays through April 9 at the law school’s student lounge, located at 656 S. Greenwich St., Valparaiso. More information and a form to schedule an appointment is on the school’s website at http://www.valpo.edu/law/vita/index.php.

Students at Notre Dame Law School volunteer in the United Way of St. Joseph County’s VITA program, according to professor Judith Fox, who teaches in that school’s legal aid clinic. Clients can make an appointment by calling the 211 helpline.

Indiana University School of Law - Indianapolis students have also volunteered for the IRS’ VITA program to offer tax preparation assistance to low- and moderate-income residents. Their supervisor, law professor Carrie Anne Hagan, said several students are volunteering at VITA sites in the Indianapolis area this year.

Lecture focuses oncolleges’ decisions

Most decisions made by colleges and universities tend to be secretive, unless they rise to the level of public outcry and end up being reported by the media or if a lawsuit is filed making the information public record.

This has made it somewhat difficult for Michael A. Olivas, a law professor and director of the Institute of Higher Education Law and Governance at the University of Houston, to do research on the topic of “Governing Badly: Theory and Practice of Bad Ideas in College Decisionmaking.” This was the subject of the annual Jerome Hall Lecture at Indiana University Maurer School of Law on Feb. 7, and the findings will be published in a future edition of Indiana Law Journal.

Olivas, president of the American Association of Law Schools, raised some interesting points about why he thinks that not only good policies, but also bad policies and bad decisions, should be explained. Doing so would provide a better understanding of how to make things better, he said.

He joked that bad decisions are difficult to find because one can’t simply do an Internet search for “bad decisions,” and there is no such thing as “baddecisions.com” to cite precedent for bad decisions in higher education.

Olivas focused his lecture on why he disagrees with legacy admissions, also known as the alumni provision, at public universities; examples of professors who wrongly lost their jobs when programs or courses were cut due to budget issues; and why studying poor decisions can ultimately help colleges make better decisions.

As for legacy admissions, he said that because a parent has gone to college, the applicant already has an advantage – even if the student’s parents didn’t go to that specific college – over other applicants who don’t have college-educated parents. College-educated parents may be better equipped to help their children in the application process and in other areas of college preparation, such as which classes to take in high school and SAT preparation.

Parents who did go to the college where their children want to apply might also have an “in” with contacts at the school’s department of admissions if they want to call for more information as to what the school is seeking in its potential students.

He didn’t say this advantage to students of college-educated parents was a bad thing, but that for public schools to weigh the legacy question heavily, which can sometimes make a big difference to a student who is applying, just doesn’t make sense.

An audience member asked if this was fair because of the idea that if an alumnus’ child is accepted, that alumnus may be more likely to donate funds to the school, especially when there is less funding from the state. Olivas said that still wasn’t enough of a reason for schools to favor those applicants.

Another issue he discussed involved schools firing professors because their programs were cut. He said these situations might not be cut-and-dry, but if a tenure-track professor was fired due to budget reasons, and then someone else was hired to teach similar or the same classes but with different names, that’s a bad decision.

He also said transparency is key in general to decisions made by colleges and universities. If everything is openly discussed, he’d have less of an issue with these decisions. In turn, the courts would likely have less of an issue when decisions led to court filings because judges and lawyers would know that the decisions were examined and made with good judgment.

At the time a bad decision is made, the decision maker likely doesn’t know he is making a bad decision, Olivas concluded. But to avoid similar bad decisions in the future, he added, they should be studied more.•


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. G. Michael Witte letter states he's suspended for three years. The case that got him suspended is identical to my estate case, including havin the Late Judge Deiter recuse himself because Newman had a conflict of interest with the judge. His Modus Operandi is nearly identical.

  2. SIGNED BY G. MICHAEL WITTE EXECUTIVE SECRETARY INDIANA SUPREME COURT DISCIPLINARY COMMISSION DATED MAY 17, 2012.

    Your 6th complaint against Lawrence T. Newman filed on 4/12/2012. On 1/31/12, the Indiana Supreme Court entered an order suspending Lawrence T. Newman’s law license for a period of three years. More important, even after three years, Lawrence Todd Newman will not get his license back unless and until he goes through a separate proceeding to prove that he is fit to practice law. This is not an easy process, and the burden is upon Lawrence T. Newman to prove by clear and convincing evidence that he is fit to return to practice.
    Because of the length of Lawrence T. Newman’s license suspension and the fact he may never succeed in getting his law license reinstated, we are not opening an investigation file at this time.
    Should Lawrence T. Newman seek reinstatement in the future, we will open your file and ask Lawrence T. Newman to address your grievance as part of his burden of proving fitness. We have attempted to notify Lawrence T. Newman that this will be required of him.
    It may disappoint you to hear that we will be doing nothing on your grievance at this time. However, the most our office can ever accomplish is to take away a lawyer’s license to practice law. We have already done that, albeit as a result of misconduct in cases other than your own. It makes better sense for our office to focus its limited resources on cases where the lawyers are still actively practicing law.

  3. Is there any justice in the Marion County Superior Court Civil Division? I am the unfortunate victim of a retaliatory lawsuit brought by Lawrence Todd Newman, the attorney from an estate case on which I worked as a unsupervised personal representative in 2006. The contract agreement for that case stated that the estate would be responsible for all attorney fees, but Newman refused to close the nearly insolvent estate when my duties were complete and his fees were paid. Instead, he tried to extort additional attorney fees from me by keeping the case open to address a wrongful death claim, despite the estate’s heir’s lack of interest in pursuing it and an expert doctor’s opinion that it would not be worth doing so. He also knowingly deceived me into believing that a “closing statement” was needed to close the estate, even though this requirement had actually been waived by the estate’s heir. The heir’s attorney filed a motion to have Newman removed from the case. After the court closed the probate case with prejudice (barred from further litigation) Newman illegally re-opened the case in another courtroom.
    As a result of complaints filed against him for these and similar actions, Newman has been suspended from practicing law for 18 months by the Indiana Disciplinary Commission. In retaliation, he has filed suit against me demanding additional attorney fees for the 2006 estate case, despite the fact that I made no agreement stating that I would pay any fees from my own assets on behalf of the estate. This lawsuit violates the rules of ethics, due process of law, and equal protection of law. Newman has been allowed to file ridiculous pleadings at an alarming rate and has been supported by a biased court system. Judge Carroll refuses to recuse himself from the case despite the fact that, by his own admission, he intends to grant Newman sanctions regardless of the evidence. When my former counsel discovered that the previous judge on the case, Judge Sosin, was a long-time close friend of Newman’s family, Judge Carroll commented for the record during a hearing that Judge Sosin in so many words “he finds the door “was weak for recusing himself from the case as a result of this obvious conflict of interest.
    This case is a public policy issue. Statutes put in place to protect unsupervised personal representatives in probate matters are being ignored. This case will affect thousands of individuals involved in probating and the personal representation of estates. Justice cannot possibly be served as long as a biased judge is allowed to defend a “vexatious litigant,” as Newman has been described by Judge Logan in Bradenton, Florida court. If there is any justice in the Marion County Superior Court Civil Division, this case against me will be dismissed with prejudice.

  4. Every affront to decency and every style adopted by criminals is not per se a constituttional violation. Only fools believe or espouse that.

  5. This was an unnecessary change in law, a needless fiddling with a tax that impacted very very few hoosiers, but one that erodes a tax base benefitting very many hoosiers. Just because some people wanted to chalk up a "tax cut" on their legislative brag-list, and didnt give a fig about replacing the revenue any other way. Really stupid. I am a republican my whole life and this just shames me like hell. I have to use a fake name over this because I know my fellow republicans are all brain washed over tax cutting too.

ADVERTISEMENT