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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Indianapolis employers harassment among minorities AFRICAN Americans needs to be discussed the metro Indianapolis area is horrible when it comes to harassing African American employees especially in the local healthcare facilities. Racially profiling in the workplace is an major issue. Please make it better because I'm many civil rights leaders would come here and justify that Indiana is a state the WORKS only applies to Caucasian Americans especially in Hamilton county. Indiana targets African Americans in the workplace so when governor pence is trying to convince people to vote for him this would be awesome publicity for the Presidency Elections.

  2. Wishing Mary Willis only God's best, and superhuman strength, as she attempts to right a ship that too often strays far off course. May she never suffer this personal affect, as some do who attempt to change a broken system: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QojajMsd2nE

  3. Indiana's seatbelt law is not punishable as a crime. It is an infraction. Apparently some of our Circuit judges have deemed settled law inapplicable if it fails to fit their litmus test of political correctness. Extrapolating to redefine terms of behavior in a violation of immigration law to the entire body of criminal law leaves a smorgasbord of opportunity for judicial mischief.

  4. I wonder if $10 diversions for failure to wear seat belts are considered moral turpitude in federal immigration law like they are under Indiana law? Anyone know?

  5. What a fine article, thank you! I can testify firsthand and by detailed legal reports (at end of this note) as to the dire consequences of rejecting this truth from the fine article above: "The inclusion and expansion of this right [to jury] in Indiana’s Constitution is a clear reflection of our state’s intention to emphasize the importance of every Hoosier’s right to make their case in front of a jury of their peers." Over $20? Every Hoosier? Well then how about when your very vocation is on the line? How about instead of a jury of peers, one faces a bevy of political appointees, mini-czars, who care less about due process of the law than the real czars did? Instead of trial by jury, trial by ideological ordeal run by Orwellian agents? Well that is built into more than a few administrative law committees of the Ind S.Ct., and it is now being weaponized, as is revealed in articles posted at this ezine, to root out post moderns heresies like refusal to stand and pledge allegiance to all things politically correct. My career was burned at the stake for not so saluting, but I think I was just one of the early logs. Due, at least in part, to the removal of the jury from bar admission and bar discipline cases, many more fires will soon be lit. Perhaps one awaits you, dear heretic? Oh, at that Ind. article 12 plank about a remedy at law for every damage done ... ah, well, the founders evidently meant only for those damages done not by the government itself, rabid statists that they were. (Yes, that was sarcasm.) My written reports available here: Denied petition for cert (this time around): http://tinyurl.com/zdmawmw Denied petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): http://tinyurl.com/zcypybh Related, not written by me: Amicus brief: http://tinyurl.com/hvh7qgp

ADVERTISEMENT