Jenny Montgomery joined the Indiana Lawyer staff in 2011. She covers law schools, bar associations, pro bono and social justice issues. She also writes about what lawyers do in their spare time.

A freelance writer since 2001, Montgomery has written for Indianapolis magazines and was part of small pool of freelancers for a California-based company that provides health and wellness articles for websites nationwide. Montgomery also covered arts and culture for the Indianapolis office of The Associated Press.

She received several statewide awards for reporting while studying journalism at Indiana University Purdue University – Indianapolis, where she was the editor of the college newspaper. While a student at IUPUI, she studied war reporting during an intensive two-week program in Croatia and Bosnia-Herzegovina.

Montgomery lives just east of downtown Indianapolis, with her husband and pets. A fitness buff, Montgomery is a volunteer conditioning and strategy coach for a local sports team.

Recent Articles

MCBA puts renewed focus on diversity

July 18, 2012
TaKeena Thompson, president of the Marion County Bar Association, wants lawyers to know that the MCBA is just as important today as it was when it was founded in 1925.

Lawyers relax and find camaraderie in softball league of their own

July 4, 2012
The Lawyer League softball is an annual summertime league in Indianapolis that's been around for more than 30 years.

Lawyer-pilot named Aviator of the Year

June 20, 2012
Rod Taylor's charitable efforts have raised millions for one Indiana hospital.

Filial statutes create questions about duty to support

June 20, 2012
A recent Pennsylvania court decision has spurred discussion among elder law attorneys about when an adult child may be found financially responsible for a parent’s long-term medical care.

Indiana's texting ban difficult to enforce

June 20, 2012
Police have issued few citations to motorists during the statute's first year and there are questions whether the law is a deterrent.

Supreme Court denies transfer to 2 cases

June 19, 2012
The Indiana Supreme Court denied transfer to two cases for the week ending June 15.

Plaintiffs fail to prove NCAA violated Sherman Act

June 18, 2012
The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a District Court in dismissing a lawsuit two former college athletes brought against the National Collegiate Athletic Association.

Wal-Mart did not discriminate against pregnant employee, 7th Circuit rules

June 12, 2012
The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals held that a woman failed to prove her claims of discrimination, retaliation and other complaints against her former employer.

7th Circuit affirms District Court in mortgage dispute

June 11, 2012
The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals held that financier Morgan Stanley acted lawfully when selling a loan to another party.

COA: Sex offender registration statute not unconstitutional

June 11, 2012
The Indiana Court of Appeals held that a man who was convicted of violating requirements of the Indiana sex offender registry statute failed to show evidence of ex post facto law.
View All Articles

Recent Blog Posts

Commission irons out details in half-day meeting

November 18, 2011
The Legislature’s Criminal Code Evaluation Commission met Thursday. If you missed the three-and-a-half hour meeting, read on to find out what happened.
View All Blogs
Sponsored by
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. What Mr. Bir is paying is actually Undifferentiated Family Support, which is a mixture of child support and spousal maintenance. If the courts had labeled accurately labeled the transfer payment, I think that Mr. Bir would have fewer objections to paying it because both Spousal Maintenance and Undifferentiated Family Support are tax deductions for the paying party and taxable to the receiving party. I brought this issue up with my family court judge when my voluntarily unemployed ex-wife was using the 'child support' transfer payment to support both herself and out children. Said family court judge stated that I did not know what I was talking about because I did not have a Juris Doctorate, despite my having a printout with dictionary definitions of the legal terms that I was using for documentation.

  2. Lori, you must really love wedding cake stories like this one ... happy enuf ending for you?

  3. 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?

  4. 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"

  5. 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?