3/12 - Vetting the House Part II (Merrillville)

Sponsored by
Back to TopPrintE-mail
Wednesday  March 12, 2014 

Vetting the House, Part II: Practical Tools, Tips and Cases to Proactively Advise Divorcing Homeowners regarding Common Legal and Financial Pitfalls

Speaker:

Kelly Lise Murray, Professor, Vanderbilt Law School

Date: Wednesday, March 12, 2014
Time (local time): 1:00 - 4:15 pm

Credit hours: 3.0 CLE

Cost: includes wine and cheese reception following seminar
$75 ($50 if you agree to take a pro bono case in 2014)

Registration form available at www.lakecountybar.com

Location: Gamba Ristorante
455 East 84th Dr., Merrillville 46410

Providers/Co-Hosts:
Lake County Bar Association's Family Law Section - The Honorable Judge Tavitas and NWI Volunteer Lawyers, Inc.

Contact information:
Debra White
(219) 738-1906
executive@lakecountybar.com

Visit www.lakecountybar.com for more information

 

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