11/6 - At the Intersection of Family Law & Estate Planning (Indianapolis)

Sponsored by
Back to TopPrintE-mail
Wednesday  November 6, 2013 
12:59 AM  EST

Speakers:
  - James Reed, Bingham Greenebaum Doll LLP - Chair & Moderator
  - Amanda Krenson, Bingham Greenebaum Doll LLP
  - Margaret Christensen, Bingham Greenebaum Doll LLP

This seminar will walk through assorted marriage dissolution scenarios from the time that the petition is filed until the Decree is issued, and examine each from an estate planning perspective, a matrimonial law perspective, and an ethics perspective.
Topics to be addressed will include:
  - What estate planning changes should a client consider if he or she believes a divorce is imminent?
  - Can I represent one party to a divorce if I previously represented the couple in creating their joint estate plan?
  - Does a standard Trial Rule 65(E) divorce restraining order on transferring assets prevent my client from revising his or her estate plan?
  - What new estate planning documents are appropriate to implement once a divorce has been filed?

Date: Wednesday, November 6, 2013
Time (local time):
Registration: 12:30 - 1:00 pm
Program: 1:00 - 3:15 pm

Credit hours: 2.0 CLE / 1.0 Ethics

Cost:
$89 Attendee
($79 Early Bird rate for attendees is available through October 10)

$79 Government Employees & Paralegals

Go to www.TheIndianaLawyer.com/events to register online.

RSVP by October 30

Location: Bingham Greenebaum Doll LLP
10 W. Market St., 2700 Market Tower, Indianapolis 46204

Provider: Indiana Lawyer
Presented in Partnership with Bingham Greenebaum Doll

Contact information:
Karen Aruta
(317) 472-5201
karuta@ibj.com
www.TheIndianaLawyer.com/events

Back to Events
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. Linda, I sure hope you are not seeking a law license, for such eighteenth century sentiments could result in your denial in some jurisdictions minting attorneys for our tolerant and inclusive profession.

  2. Mazel Tov to the newlyweds. And to those bakers, photographers, printers, clerks, judges and others who will lose careers and social standing for not saluting the New World (Dis)Order, we can all direct our Two Minutes of Hate as Big Brother asks of us. Progress! Onward!

  3. My daughter was taken from my home at the end of June/2014. I said I would sign the safety plan but my husband would not. My husband said he would leave the house so my daughter could stay with me but the case worker said no her mind is made up she is taking my daughter. My daughter went to a friends and then the friend filed a restraining order which she was told by dcs if she did not then they would take my daughter away from her. The restraining order was not in effect until we were to go to court. Eventually it was dropped but for 2 months DCS refused to allow me to have any contact and was using the restraining order as the reason but it was not in effect. This was Dcs violating my rights. Please help me I don't have the money for an attorney. Can anyone take this case Pro Bono?

  4. If justice is not found in a court room, it's time to clean house!!! Even judges are accountable to a higher Judge!!!

  5. The small claims system, based on my recent and current usage of it, is not exactly a shining example of justice prevailing. The system appears slow and clunky and people involved seem uninterested in actually serving justice within a reasonable time frame. Any improvement in accountability and performance would gain a vote from me. Speaking of voting, what do the people know about judges and justice from the bench perspective. I think they have a tendency to "vote" for judges based on party affiliation or name coolness factor (like Stoner, for example!). I don't know what to do in my current situation other than grin and bear it, but my case is an example of things working neither smoothly, effectively nor expeditiously. After this experience I'd pay more to have the higher courts hear the case -- if I had the money. Oh the conundrum.

ADVERTISEMENT