About

December 3, 2007
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
Welcome to First Impressions, Indiana Lawyer’s legal blog. Your host is Jennifer Mehalik, Indiana Lawyer’s Web editor. Mehalik grew up in Indianapolis and attended Indiana University in Bloomington. After writing for other IBJ Media publications, Mehalik joined Indiana Lawyer as a reporter and now handles e-media for the publication. She finds it ironic that her least favorite part of media law was reading court opinions, which she now does on a daily basis and actually enjoys. If you have a good idea for a blog topic, contact her at 317-472-5234 or jmehalik@ibj.com
ADVERTISEMENT
  • Regarding the three attorneys who were disciplined for using a trade name in their practice, few attorneys know that Indiana is one of only two states that does not permit attorneys to practice under a trade name. The other state is Arizona. (Until recently, Indiana and Arizona also shared another singular distinction - the only two states in the continental United States to not observe daylight savings.)

    With the permitted use of law firm logos, slogans, and creative web addresses, along with the permitted use of law firm names of lawyers long since deceased (which are in essence, trade names), is it now time for Indiana to do as it did with the daylight savings ban and join with the rest of the US by scrapping the ban on using trade names?

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
ADVERTISEMENT
  1. Such things are no more elections than those in the late, unlamented Soviet Union.

  2. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  3. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  4. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  5. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

ADVERTISEMENT