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. 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