Privacy Policy

Indiana Lawyer Privacy Statement:

Indiana Lawyer will never share your private information (e-mail address, etc.) with anyone unless you expressly request Indiana Lawyer to do so.

Indiana Lawyer has created this privacy statement in order to demonstrate our firm commitment to privacy. We will never sell or transfer any information we collect from you unless you specifically request that we do so. We do not sell, rent, or give your information to any other company.

The following discloses our information gathering and dissemination practices for this website: www.theindianalawyer.com.

We use your IP address to help diagnose problems with our server, and to administer our Web site. Registration forms on theindianalawyer.com may require users to give contact information (such as their name and e-mail address) and demographic information (such as their zip code, age, or phone number). We use customer contact information from the registration forms to send the user information about our company and promotional material about some of our partners.

Demographic and profile data is also collected at our site. We use this data to tailor our communication with our visitors. We do not share this information with anyone.

This site may contain links to other sites. theindianalawyer.com is not responsible for the privacy practices or the content of such Web sites.

Third parties provide some of the content provided on this Website. These parties do not have access to any of the information you provide Indiana Lawyer via this site. Demographic and profile data is also collected at our site. We do not share this information with anyone.

Our site uses cookies to track visitors to our site.

Security
This site has security measures in place to protect the loss, misuse and alteration of the information under our control.

This site gives users the following options for removing their information from our database to not receive future communications or to no longer receive our service. You can send e-mail to webmaster@ibj.com.

Correct/Update
This site gives users the following options for changing and modifying information previously provided. Send e-mail to: webmaster@ibj.com.

Questions
If you have any questions about this privacy statement, the practices of this site, or your dealings with this Web site, you can contact: IBJ Corp., 41 E. Washington St., Indianapolis, IN 46204; (317)634-6200
 

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