Despite what you may see on other attorney’s websites, Indiana Ethics rules prevent advertisement of verdicts and settlements on law firms’ websites. The reason for this rule is to prevent the creation of “unjustified expectations” or to express or imply future success based on past performance. At PBAR, we strive to follow both the letter and spirit of this rule.*

The following are examples of actual cases our firm has handled to conclusion which you may find helpful in evaluating our firm's track record. For a more detailed analysis of how we can help you with your specific case, please contact us for a FREE CASE REVIEW.

Wrongful Death Attorney Indianapolis

Wrongful Death

(Truck v. Semi)
Our client was the driver in a pick-up truck on the interstate that had stopped due to an accident ahead. He was accompanied by his wife.  The defendant semi-driver failed to recognize the stopped traffic and smashed into our client’s vehicle, killing his wife and causing serious physical injury to our client. Our client was entrapped for nearly 90 minutes before being rescued by emergency personnel. Poynter & Bucheri hired a trucking engineer to inspect the semi and it was revealed that the semi had faulty brakes. We sent our client to be evaluated by a forensic psychiatrist who determined that in addition to his substantial bodily injury, he suffered from post traumatic stress disorder. An Indiana University economics professor was hired to determine the economic damages. The parties participated in pre-suit mediation and the matter was resolved without litigation.


Dram Shop (Tavern) Liability

Our client was stopped by police at a fast food drive thru when employees called police because they suspected he was intoxicated. During the stop, our client fled the police on foot and was struck by oncoming vehicles while crossing the highway. He suffered catastrophic injury, including serious traumatic brain injury and required round the clock health care supervision. Poynter & Bucheri investigated the case and determined our Client’s blood alcohol content greatly exceeded the legal limit. Poynter & Bucheri traced potential dram shop liability to a bar that may have served Plaintiff while he was intoxicated earlier that night. Defendant sought summary judgment, which was granted; however, Plaintiffs prevailed on appeal. (Read more) The jury trial was reset and, finally, a settlement was reached by the parties. For further details, please contact our office.


Trip and Fall

Our client was an elderly woman customer at a big box clothing store, where she tripped and fell over the threshold of the entrance. The client suffered a fractured hip and required multiple surgeries. Poynter & Bucheri named both the big box store and landlord as defendants. We hired an engineer to conduct an inspection and he found that the threshold was not in compliance with code. After sharing the report, settlement was reached with both defendants. For further details, please contact our office.


Product Liability

Our client was an employee who delivered office equipment. The company he worked for used a national car rental company to provide the delivery trucks. Client was unloading equipment when his finger was caught in the lift gate and amputated part of his finger. Poynter & Bucheri sued both the car rental company and the manufacturer of the lift gate. We retained an engineering expert and were able to successfully argue that that the lift gate was negligently designed and maintained and reached settlements with both defendants. For further details, please contact our office.


Failure to Supervise Minor­

Our client was a minor that was a customer at a children’s entertainment venue. While he was there, he participated in a sanctioned “tug of war” event. During the event, his hand became mangled and nearly amputated by the tug of war rope. After extensive investigation, Poynter & Bucheri argued that the venue was at fault for failing to supervise the minor, failing to adequately train its employees and by negligently putting on the event. On the day before jury trial, settlement was reached. For further details, please contact our office.

Indiana Rules of Professional Conduct State:

* Truthful statements that are misleading are also prohibited by the Indiana Rules of Professional Conduct. In the absence of special circumstances that serve to protect the probable targets of a communication from being misled or deceived, a communication will violate Rule 7.1 if it:

  1. is intended or is likely to result in a legal action or a legal position being asserted merely to harass or maliciously injure another;
  2. contains statistical data or other information based on past performance or an express or implied prediction of future success;
  3. contains a claim about a lawyer, made by a third party, that the lawyer could not personally make consistent with the requirements of this rule;
  4. appeals primarily to a lay person’s fear, greed, or desire for revenge;
  5. compares the services provided by the lawyer or a law firm with other lawyers’ services, unless the comparison can be factually substantiated;
  6. contains any reference to results obtained that may reasonably create an expectation of similar results in future matters;
  7. contains a dramatization or re-creation of events unless the advertising clearly and conspicuously discloses that a dramatization or re-creation is being presented;
  8. contains a representation, testimonial, or endorsement of a lawyer or other statement that, in light of all the circumstances, is intended or is likely to create an unjustified expectation about a lawyer or law firm or a person’s legal rights;
  9. states or implies that a lawyer is a certified or recognized specialist other than as permitted by Rule 7.4;
  10. is prohibited by Rule 7.3.