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. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

  2. Seventh Circuit Court Judge Diane Wood has stated in “The Rule of Law in Times of Stress” (2003), “that neither laws nor the procedures used to create or implement them should be secret; and . . . the laws must not be arbitrary.” According to the American Bar Association, Wood’s quote drives home this point: The rule of law also requires that people can expect predictable results from the legal system; this is what Judge Wood implies when she says that “the laws must not be arbitrary.” Predictable results mean that people who act in the same way can expect the law to treat them in the same way. If similar actions do not produce similar legal outcomes, people cannot use the law to guide their actions, and a “rule of law” does not exist.

  3. Linda, I sure hope you are not seeking a law license, for such eighteenth century sentiments could result in your denial in some jurisdictions minting attorneys for our tolerant and inclusive profession.

  4. Mazel Tov to the newlyweds. And to those bakers, photographers, printers, clerks, judges and others who will lose careers and social standing for not saluting the New World (Dis)Order, we can all direct our Two Minutes of Hate as Big Brother asks of us. Progress! Onward!

  5. My daughter was taken from my home at the end of June/2014. I said I would sign the safety plan but my husband would not. My husband said he would leave the house so my daughter could stay with me but the case worker said no her mind is made up she is taking my daughter. My daughter went to a friends and then the friend filed a restraining order which she was told by dcs if she did not then they would take my daughter away from her. The restraining order was not in effect until we were to go to court. Eventually it was dropped but for 2 months DCS refused to allow me to have any contact and was using the restraining order as the reason but it was not in effect. This was Dcs violating my rights. Please help me I don't have the money for an attorney. Can anyone take this case Pro Bono?

ADVERTISEMENT