ILNews

Social media push boosts calls to Evansville’s legal advice service

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Evansville legal community, worried that its monthly talk-to-a-lawyer program was losing popularity, turned to the place where it seems everyone gathers – cyberspace.

Calls coming to talk-to-a-lawyer had dropped to an average of 35 to 50 per month, according to Scott Wylie, president of the Evansville Bar Association. Also, the questions many of the callers asked had been shifting from the family law and landlord-tenant issues to estate planning and probate. Many attorneys wondered what was happening when they realized the program’s advertising was limited largely to newspapers which often attract an older demographic.

To engage younger people, the legal community began touting the free advice program on Facebook. The Evansville Bar Association’s Access to Justice Committee wrote a blurb, giving the time and phone number of the talk-to-a-lawyer event and invited callers. Then members of the bar association, the Evansville Bar Foundation and the Pro Bono District posted the blurb on their Facebook pages.

In addition, the access committee also created a Facebook page, “Free Legal Advice Evansville.”

So far, the social media push has been successful. March 6 at the EBA offices in Evansville, the phones rang almost non-stop and call volume increased to almost 70 during the two-and-a-half-hour event. Wylie believes the message on Facebook not only alerted the public to the call-in program but also enabled attorneys to direct people, who they could not assist, to legal help.  

The boost that appears to have come through social media, said Wylie, “has allowed us to remember that it’s important for us to reach all members of the general public. It’s more about being thoughtful and making sure legal help is available to everyone.”


 
 

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

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