IL Print Only Subscription

Print
Here's what you get with your IL Print subscription for one year:
26 bi-weekly issues of Indiana Lawyer Print including the latest news, in-depth reports, focus sections and special sections that interest Indiana's legal community. Written by the award winning staff of Indiana Lawyer.
x
  Annual Print editions of Leadership in Law and Corporate Counsel Guide
x
  Free email subscription to IL Daily (Monday through Friday) that reports the latest breaking Indiana legal news.
x
x
Subscribe Now
x

Your subscription will renew automatically for 52 weeks at the rate in effect at the time of your renewal unless you notify us to terminate your subscription prior to your expiration date. You will receive an e-mail notification from ibj.com when your subscription is due to expire.

The subscription fee will be billed automatically to your credit card at the beginning of your subscription at the beginning of any renewals.

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 need an experienced attorney to handle a breach of contract matter. Kindly respond for more details. Graham Young

  2. I thought the slurs were the least grave aspects of her misconduct, since they had nothing to do with her being on the bench. Why then do I suspect they were the focus? I find this a troubling trend. At least she was allowed to keep her law license.

  3. Section 6 of Article I of the Indiana Constitution is pretty clear and unequivocal: "Section 6. No money shall be drawn from the treasury for the benefit of any religious or theological institution."

  4. Video pen? Nice work, "JW"! Let this be a lesson and a caution to all disgruntled ex-spouses (or soon-to-be ex-spouses) . . . you may think that altercation is going to get you some satisfaction . . . it will not.

  5. First comment on this thread is a fitting final comment on this thread, as that the MCBA never answered Duncan's fine question, and now even Eric Holder agrees that the MCBA was in material error as to the facts: "I don't get it" from Duncan December 1, 2014 5:10 PM "The Grand Jury met for 25 days and heard 70 hours of testimony according to this article and they made a decision that no crime occurred. On what basis does the MCBA conclude that their decision was "unjust"? What special knowledge or evidence does the MCBA have that the Grand Jury hearing this matter was unaware of? The system that we as lawyers are sworn to uphold made a decision that there was insufficient proof that officer committed a crime. How can any of us say we know better what was right than the jury that actually heard all of the the evidence in this case."

ADVERTISEMENT