ILNews

IBA: Disaster Recovery Planning Can't Afford to Wait

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Lawyers are known for giving advice that helps clients plan, but when it comes to planning for a disaster and recovery, legal professionals need to take their own advice and create a plan. All lawyers need to plan for how their firms will cope with natural or man-made disasters ranging from fires and floods to terrorist attacks, hurricanes, chemical explosions or blizzards.

For a law firm, the disaster recovery plan should suit its size, type of practice and locale. And, while it is easy to depend on technology, the human element is the most important part of the plan. That’s because without talented people focused on client needs, a law practice does not exist.

The reason for planning is clear: lawyers need to be able to help themselves so they can help their clients. Just as a firm reaches out to employees by e-mail, cell phone and the firm’s Web site, it should reach out to clients who may be in a state of crisis themselves and welcome the support and reassurance.

Depending on the nature of the emergency — a fire in your building, for example, in which case, your firm may be the only one affected — you still may be expected to meet filing deadlines and court appearances. Under those circumstances reaching out to clients to let them know that you are looking out for them despite the disaster is essential.

If the disaster is more widespread, such as Hurricane Katrina, the floods in the Tennessee or high winds that shut down your building, everyone — attorneys, employees, and clients — may feel the effects. Just accounting for employees and clients may take time.

A firm may want to consider setting up a team to take charge during a disaster. Team members should include management and administrative personnel. The plan should outline contingency operations, how staff will locate each other and how they will communicate with other employees. Having a plan in place will help avoid making reactive decisions. Telling all employees about the plan is key.

For more on disaster recovery planning log on to www.indybar.org or contact Indianapolis Bar Association Executive Director Julie Armstrong at jarmstrong@indybar.org.•

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. I enrolled America's 1st tax-free Health Savings Account (HSA) so you can trust me. I bet 1/3 of my clients were lawyers because they love tax-free deposits, growth and withdrawals or total tax freedom. Most of the time (always) these clients are uninformed about insurance law. Employer-based health insurance is simple if you read the policy. It says, Employers (lawyers) and employees who are working 30-hours-per-week are ELIGIBLE for insurance. Then I show the lawyer the TERMINATION clause which states: When you are no longer ELIGIBLE! Then I ask a closing question (sales term) to the lawyer which is, "If you have a stroke or cancer and become too sick to work can you keep your health insurance?" If the lawyer had dependent children they needed a "Dependent Conversion Privilege" in case their child got sick or hurt which the lawyers never had. Lawyers are pretty easy sales. Save premium, eliminate taxes and build wealth!

  2. Ok, so cheap laughs made about the Christian Right. hardiharhar ... All kidding aside, it is Mohammad's followers who you should be seeking divine protection from. Allahu Akbar But progressives are in denial about that, even as Europe crumbles.

  3. Father's rights? What about a mothers rights? A child's rights? Taking a child from the custody of the mother for political reasons! A miscarriage of justice! What about the welfare of the child? Has anyone considered parent alienation, the father can't erase the mother from the child's life. This child loves the mother and the home in Wisconsin, friends, school and family. It is apparent the father hates his ex-wife more than he loves his child! I hope there will be a Guardian Ad Litem, who will spend time with and get to know the child, BEFORE being brainwashed by the father. This is not just a child! A little person with rights and real needs, a stable home and a parent that cares enough to let this child at least finish the school year, where she is happy and comfortable! Where is the justice?

  4. "The commission will review applications and interview qualified candidates in March and April." Riiiiiight. Would that be the same vaulted process that brought us this result done by "qualified candidates"? http://www.theindianalawyer.com/justices-deny-transfer-to-child-custody-case/PARAMS/article/42774 Perhaps a lottery system more like the draft would be better? And let us not limit it to Indiana attorneys so as to give the untainted a fighting chance?

  5. Steal a little, and they put you in jail. Steal a lot, and they make you king. Bob Dylan ala Samuel Johnson. I had a very similar experience trying to hold due process trampling bureaucrats responsible under the law. Consider this quote and commentary:"'When the president does it, that means it is not illegal,' [Richard] Nixon told his interviewer. Those words were largely seen by the American public -- which continued to hold the ex-president in low esteem -- as a symbol of his unbowed arrogance. Most citizens still wanted to believe that no American citizen, not even the president, is above the law." BWHaahaaahaaa!!!! http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/attytood/When-the-president-does-it-that-means-it-is-not-illegal.html

ADVERTISEMENT