ILNews

Valpo law lecture series starts Sept. 16

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Valparaiso University School of Law's fall lecture series "Scholars and Advocates in Residence: Shaping the Public Dialogue" kicks off Sept. 16 with a presentation from a senior lecturer in law from Ireland.

Owen McIntyre of University College Cork will give a lecture entitled, "The Emergence of a Human Right to Water under International Law: Issues and Implications." McIntyre's lecture, as well as those of the other four visiting scholars, begins at 4 p.m. in Wesemann Hall, 656 S. Greenwich St., Valparaiso. Campus maps and directions are available on Valparaiso University's Web site.

The other lectures in the fall series are "Forming a Professional Identity in Law through Writing: A Pervasive Approach," Oct. 7, presented by Andrea McArdle, professor and director of legal writing at City University of New York; "Overcoming Historical and Continuing Challenges to Genuine Peace and Good Governance in Liberia," Oct. 23, by Negbalee Warner, a Liberian attorney and political and social activist; "An Urban Slice of the Pie: The Constitution and the Prevention of Illegal Eviction and Unlawful Occupation of Law Act," Oct. 29, presented by Steve Kahanovitz, a staff attorney with the Legal Resources Center in Cape Town, South Africa; and "Sexual Offender Law Reform: The Australian Experience," Nov. 11, by Justice Marcia Ann Neave of the Supreme Court of Victoria, Court of Appeals division.

The lecture series is free and open to the public. Attorneys interested in receiving CLE credit can get forms at the events to submit for credit; attorneys can also contact the law school at (219) 465-7893 or e-mail Lisa.Todd@valpo.edu for more information about obtaining CLE credit.

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