ILNews

Attorneys wanted for flood assistance

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
The Indiana State Bar Association is looking for attorneys to help answer legal questions of Hoosiers affected by this month's flooding. Flood victims can call the bar association's toll-free number to receive free legal assistance for issues relating to the flooding.

Community Outreach Coordinator Alaina Byers said volunteer attorneys can be from anywhere in the state. Flood victims will contact the state bar at (800) 266-2581 and leave their contact information and legal issue. The ISBA will pass along the information to an attorney who will contact the caller directly by phone. The calls will take about 15 minutes, she said.

Byers said the hotline is only for flood-related legal matters such as insurance claims, home repair contracts, or replacing legal documents. Right now, the free legal help is only available to residents of the eight counties President George W. Bush has approved for federal assistance - Bartholomew, Hancock, Johnson, Marion, Monroe, Morgan, Vermillion, and Vigo. As more counties are approved for federal assistance, those residents will be able to use the hotline.

Residents who sustained losses as a result of the flooding can call the toll-free number Monday through Friday from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. EDT. Byers said the number is up and running and will continue as long as needed.

Lawyers interested in volunteering can contact Byers at the state bar association by phone at (800) 266-2581, or e-mail abyers@inbar.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

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