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 or contact Indianapolis Bar Association Executive Director Julie Armstrong at•


Post a comment to this story

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
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Lori, you must really love wedding cake stories like this one ... happy enuf ending for you?

  2. This new language about a warning has not been discussed at previous meetings. It's not available online. Since it must be made public knowledge before the vote, does anyone know exactly what it says? Further, this proposal was held up for 5 weeks because members Carol and Lucy insisted that all terms used be defined. So now, definitions are unnecessary and have not been inserted? Beyond these requirements, what is the logic behind giving one free pass to discriminators? Is that how laws work - break it once and that's ok? Just don't do it again? Three members of Carmel's council have done just about everything they can think of to prohibit an anti-discrimination ordinance in Carmel, much to Brainard's consternation, I'm told. These three 'want to be so careful' that they have failed to do what at least 13 other communities, including Martinsville, have already done. It's not being careful. It's standing in the way of what 60% of Carmel residents want. It's hurting CArmel in thT businesses have refused to locate because the council has not gotten with the program. And now they want to give discriminatory one free shot to do so. Unacceptable. Once three members leave the council because they lost their races, the Carmel council will have unanimous approval of the ordinance as originally drafted, not with a one free shot to discriminate freebie. That happens in January 2016. Why give a freebie when all we have to do is wait 3 months and get an ordinance with teeth from Day 1? If nothing else, can you please get s copy from Carmel and post it so we can see what else has changed in the proposal?

  3. Here is an interesting 2012 law review article for any who wish to dive deeper into this subject matter: Excerpt: "Judicial interpretation of the ADA has extended public entity liability to licensing agencies in the licensure and certification of attorneys.49 State bar examiners have the authority to conduct fitness investigations for the purpose of determining whether an applicant is a direct threat to the public.50 A “direct threat” is defined as “a significant risk to the health or safety of others that cannot be eliminated by a modification of policies, practices or procedures, or by the provision of auxiliary aids or services as provided by § 35.139.”51 However, bar examiners may not utilize generalizations or stereotypes about the applicant’s disability in concluding that an applicant is a direct threat.52"

  4. We have been on the waiting list since 2009, i was notified almost 4 months ago that we were going to start receiving payments and we still have received nothing. Every time I call I'm told I just have to wait it's in the lawyers hands. Is everyone else still waiting?

  5. I hope you dont mind but to answer my question. What amendment does this case pretain to?