ILNews

Downtown Indianapolis fire affects law firms

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

An early morning fire in downtown Indianapolis gave two nearby law firms a scare as flames poured out of the building.

A fire broke out around 3 a.m. at an apartment building under construction just off the canal and bordered by Senate Avenue and Michigan and North Streets. The fire continued to burn into the early afternoon. The blaze sent ash, smoke, and embers into the air, concerning nearby building owners and occupants.

LewisWagner's windows along the side of the building facing the canal broke as a result of the heat from the fire. Partner John Trimble said none of the windows broke inward and there are spider-web-sized cracks in all of those windows. No smoke entered the building through the broken windows. A contractor will board the windows until they can be replaced, he said. LewisWagner is about 150 feet away from the apartment building, which was across the canal, and firefighters used the firm's lot to spray water on the fire.

Schultz and Pogue, which is about 300 feet and across a parking lot from the building, reported no damage to the firm, although the firm has called a fire safety engineer to inspect the building's roof to make sure it doesn't have any damage, said partner Peter Pogue.

When Pogue arrived at the building around 6:30 a.m., the police and fire departments wouldn't let staff in because of safety concerns of the building catching fire from the blowing embers. By 8 a.m., the staff was allowed in, although Pogue said they were told not to come in until noon. Access to the firm is limited because several surrounding streets were closed because of the fire.

Katz & Korin, which is about a block south of the fire, reported no damage but could smell the smoke when the firm's front door would open.

Officials at the Indiana University School of Law - Indianapolis, a few blocks from the site, reported that other than traffic problems because of blocked streets, nothing was impacted by the fire.

Trimble learned of the fire after he turned on the news this morning and said he rushed to the firm as quickly as he could and sent e-mails to the firm's attorneys telling them not to come in until later in the morning.

Pogue was notified by a co-owner of his firm's building.

"This is very disappointing," Trimble said, noting the firm feels for the owners who lost their building. "It was a very attractive structure, and we were looking forward to it being completed."

The building, Cosmopolitan on the Canal, was a $33 million apartment project scheduled to begin leasing units in May. Retail space was also part of the project.

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. I wonder if the USSR had electronic voting machines that changed the ballot after it was cast? Oh well, at least we have a free media serving as vicious watchdog and exposing all of the rot in the system! (Insert rimshot)

  2. Jose, you are assuming those in power do not wish to be totalitarian. My experience has convinced me otherwise. Constitutionalists are nearly as rare as hens teeth among the powerbrokers "managing" us for The Glorious State. Oh, and your point is dead on, el correcta mundo. Keep the Founders’ (1791 & 1851) vision alive, my friend, even if most all others, and especially the ruling junta, chase only power and money (i.e. mammon)

  3. Hypocrisy in high places, absolute immunity handed out like Halloween treats (it is the stuff of which tyranny is made) and the belief that government agents are above the constitutions and cannot be held responsible for mere citizen is killing, perhaps has killed, The Republic. And yet those same power drunk statists just reel on down the hallway toward bureaucratic fascism.

  4. Well, I agree with you that the people need to wake up and see what our judges and politicians have done to our rights and freedoms. This DNA loophole in the statute of limitations is clearly unconstitutional. Why should dna evidence be treated different than video tape evidence for example. So if you commit a crime and they catch you on tape or if you confess or leave prints behind: they only have five years to bring their case. However, if dna identifies someone they can still bring a case even fifty-years later. where is the common sense and reason. Members of congress are corrupt fools. They should all be kicked out of office and replaced by people who respect the constitution.

  5. If the AG could pick and choose which state statutes he defended from Constitutional challenge, wouldn't that make him more powerful than the Guv and General Assembly? In other words, the AG should have no choice in defending laws. He should defend all of them. If its a bad law, blame the General Assembly who presumably passed it with a majority (not the government lawyer). Also, why has there been no write up on the actual legislators who passed the law defining marriage? For all the fuss Democrats have made, it would be interesting to know if some Democrats voted in favor of it (or if some Republican's voted against it). Have a nice day.

ADVERTISEMENT