Disaster plans at firms

March 12, 2009
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A fire in downtown Indianapolis has made two firms thankful they have disaster plans already in place.



I spoke with John Trimble at LewisWagner and Peter Pogue at Schultz and Pogue this morning about the fire, and both reiterated the importance of disaster plans at firms. The two firms are located in close proximity to the apartment building that caught fire this morning. They both said if the wind had blown in a different direction, there was a chance their buildings could have caught fire. LewisWagner did suffer damage to some windows facing the fire. (The photo in this post was taken by Pogue from his law office this morning.)

“After Hurricane Katrina and the windstorm that damaged the bank building downtown, we implemented a disaster program with off-site electronic storage,” Trimble said. “This fire was a reminder that all prudent law firms should have a disaster plan.”

Pogue said his firm met with Beth Knotts of Hill Fulwider after the damage that firm sustained from the storm downtown in April 2006 and developed a disaster plan for Schultz and Pogue.

“While we did not need to fully implement that plan today, several aspects for securing computers and personnel notification were implemented and worked well,” Pogue said. “Another reminder how having a disaster plan in place is so important for law firms.”
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
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