ILNews

Clerk responds to attorneys’ concerns about personal security

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Attorneys’ concerns over personal security have prompted the Indiana Clerk of Courts to offer an opt-out feature when updating attorney registrations on its registration portal.

The new feature was unveiled as part of the courts’ reminder to Indiana attorneys that this is the time to make their annual attorney registration fee payments and IOLTA certifications. The deadline is Oct. 1, 2013.

The registration portal now allows lawyers to not have their business addresses publicly displayed on the Roll of Attorneys website. According to Sarah Kidwell, outreach coordinator for the Indiana Supreme Court, the feature was offered in response to the number of attorneys who are working from their homes and do not want the address of their personal residences made public.

In order to remove their business address, attorneys must check the opt-out box when registering online. It will not be done automatically.

Attorneys can register and pay online through the Indiana Clerk of Courts Portal at http://appealsclerk.IN.gov. The web-based portal was introduced in 2011 and updated to its current version in 2012.

Kidwell said since the registration announcement was made last week, the portal has been working. Some attorneys have needed assistance after forgetting their passwords or user names.

Attorneys who do not register by the deadline face fines up to $440 and possible suspension.

Lawyers who prefer not to use the portal can request a paper form by contacting the Roll of Attorneys administrator at 317-232-5861, ext. 4, or rollatty@courts.in.gov.

 

 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

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. Well, maybe it's because they are unelected, and, they have a tendency to strike down laws by elected officials from all over the country. When you have been taught that "Democracy" is something almost sacred, then, you will have a tendency to frown on such imperious conduct. Lawyers get acculturated in law school into thinking that this is the very essence of high minded government, but to people who are more heavily than King George ever did, they may not like it. Thanks for the information.

  2. I pd for a bankruptcy years ago with Mr Stiles and just this week received a garnishment from my pay! He never filed it even though he told me he would! Don't let this guy practice law ever again!!!

  3. Excellent initiative on the part of the AG. Thankfully someone takes action against predators taking advantage of people who have already been through the wringer. Well done!

  4. Conour will never turn these funds over to his defrauded clients. He tearfully told the court, and his daughters dutifully pledged in interviews, that his first priority is to repay every dime of the money he stole from his clients. Judge Young bought it, much to the chagrin of Conour’s victims. Why would Conour need the $2,262 anyway? Taxpayers are now supporting him, paying for his housing, utilities, food, healthcare, and clothing. If Conour puts the money anywhere but in the restitution fund, he’s proved, once again, what a con artist he continues to be and that he has never had any intention of repaying his clients. Judge Young will be proven wrong... again; Conour has no remorse and the Judge is one of the many conned.

  5. Pass Legislation to require guilty defendants to pay for the costs of lab work, etc as part of court costs...

ADVERTISEMENT