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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Just an aside, but regardless of the outcome, I 'm proud of Judge William Hughes. He was the original magistrate on the Home place issue. He ruled for Home Place, and was primaried by Brainard for it. Their tool Poindexter failed to unseat Hughes, who won support for his honesty and courage throughout the county, and he was reelected Judge of Hamilton County's Superior Court. You can still stand for something and survive. Thanks, Judge Hughes!

  2. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  3. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  4. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  5. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

ADVERTISEMENT