ILNews

Longtime labor law attorney elected managing shareholder for national firm

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share


Kim Ebert isn't afraid of hard work. While he's been practicing labor and employment law for more than three decades, the Indianapolis attorney has a work ethic formed long before his legal career began.

Before joining the white-collar legal world, Ebert made a blue-collar living to help pay his way through college and law school - several summers of construction jobs, one full summer of unhooking railcars in the middle of the night as a road brakeman, and 15 months as a laborer and machine operator at an Indianapolis engine plant.

Those years helped pave the way to what he'd eventually meld into a successful legal career that's included helping start an Indianapolis office for a national firm. Now he's taking the reins as managing shareholder for the nation's third-largest labor and employment law firm, Ogletree Deakins Nash Smoak & Stewart.

At the annual shareholders meeting in January, Ebert was named managing shareholder, responsible for the strategic growth of the overall firm. The promotion is historic for Ogletree, as Ebert is only the fourth managing shareholder for the firm founded in 1977 and the first who hasn't been a national founding member. He succeeds Gray Geddie in Atlanta, who'd served in that role since January 2001 and whose leadership tripled the number of offices, increased the number of attorneys by more than 300, and quadrupled annual revenues.

"There's a lot of history here, and I sincerely appreciate the hard work and tremendous efforts that have been made leading up to this point," Ebert said. "Like I said, I understand hard work and plan to keep it up. I look forward to the challenge ahead."

Growing up


In May 2000, Ebert was one of nine Hoosier attorneys who left what was then Locke Reynolds to open in Indianapolis Ogletree Deakins' 12th office. They made a strategic decision to leave and create an office with a specific focus on what they'd done at their previous firm.

Marking its 10-year anniversary this spring, the Indianapolis office now boasts 30 lawyers. The firm has 470 lawyers nationally in 37 offices; it expects to open more offices by the end of this year, Ebert said. Revenue grew by more than 5 percent last year and has passed the $200 million mark, he said.

Because of the legal market in Indiana, Ebert said that last year the firm's Indiana office had more than 300 cases and that has been doubling about every year. The focus used to be primarily on manufacturing clients, but that's shifted throughout the decade into other areas such as health care, retail, transportation, logistics, and universities. About 40 percent of the workload is employment and related litigation, 30 percent is traditional work like labor unions, and the rest is made up of growing areas such as immigration, employee benefits, and workplace safety, he said.

"We came here on the feeling that we needed a broader national platform for our practice," Ebert said. "The past decade validates our decision back then."

Chuck Baldwin, now managing shareholder for the Indianapolis office, said his colleague and mentor's leadership in the past 10 years has been a key reason for the Indianapolis office's success. The two have worked together for 22 years, he said.

"Kim works as hard now as the day I met him; it's in his DNA," Baldwin said. "He's a tremendous mentor and role model, and he sets high standards for himself and those around him, and achieves them. It's a real treat for the Indianapolis office to have the firm's managing shareholder based here and that it's Kim."

Stepping up


Ebert said his multiple leadership positions in the past decade helped prepare him for this new position. Aside from helping found and being managing shareholder for Indianapolis, he earned a spot in 2001 on the firm's five-person compensation committee that increased his management duties. Now, he oversees that committee, and the chief operating officer reports directly to him on administrative aspects. He also chairs the fourperson executive management board.

In his new role, Ebert said he's continuing what the firm has been doing for the past decade: capitalizing on the trend of large national companies consolidating labor and employment work in firms that have deep expertise and geographic reach outside of one particular location.

Because the broad goal is to make sure the firm and its attorneys are meeting clients' needs, Ebert said equally important is making sure each attorney has the ability to keep up the basics, such as returning telephone calls or e-mails the same day, or being available to help with emergencies at any hour.

"We strive to know our clients' business and to be a partner in achieving their goals," he said. "To fulfill this objective, I need to be clear in setting expectations for Ogletree lawyers and then give them the tools and systems they need to succeed as professionals here."

Aside from also meeting with Ogletree lawyers internally about alternative fee arrangements or other topical issues, Ebert said he's heavily involved in the exploration of lateral lawyers who might be interested in joining the firm.

"This is a constant process, and we almost always have some discussion going on with groups or single laterals in the field," he said, noting that at least six laterals are being voted on in the coming weeks. "The general practice firms have tended to price those labor employment lawyers out of the market, or they're viewed as being service lawyers within a firm, so we're having many lawyers come to us and finding that this firm's specific focus is very rewarding."

Keeping up

Ebert is maintaining his home base in Indianapolis; he will split his time there and traveling among various offices and client locations in order to handle management tasks and his own client duties. During his career at Ogletree, he's defended employers in virtually every area of labor and employment law, as well as representing employers in investigative and administrative proceedings before the National Labor Relations Board, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, U.S. Department of Labor, and other federal and state agencies. Although any given week could mean traveling, Ebert said the new job is teaching him he must be even more disciplined about the cases and matters he's personally handling.

He also plans to continue the philanthropic efforts he's personally been involved with and those he's spearheaded through the firm. Most recently, he directed the firm's Haitian relief effort and raised more than $50,000 in contributions. He also has run in more than 20 half-marathons throughout the country, and he ran the half-marathon with a group in the Rock 'n' Roll Marathon in San Diego to raise more than $30,000 for The Leukemia & Lymphoma Society.

While there's a lot on his plate, Ebert remains confident that he'll be able to handle the tasks and continue the successful path that Ogletree has been on for many years.

It all goes back to his pre-law career days, he said.

"I've been a member of two unions for railroads and an engine plant, worked in unionized crowds, and so that gave me an understanding about the perspective of the working person," he said. "I've been there, and I understand hard work."

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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. The appellate court just said doctors can be sued for reporting child abuse. The most dangerous form of child abuse with the highest mortality rate of any form of child abuse (between 6% and 9% according to the below listed studies). Now doctors will be far less likely to report this form of dangerous child abuse in Indiana. If you want to know what this is, google the names Lacey Spears, Julie Conley (and look at what happened when uninformed judges returned that child against medical advice), Hope Ybarra, and Dixie Blanchard. Here is some really good reporting on what this allegation was: http://media.star-telegram.com/Munchausenmoms/ Here are the two research papers: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0145213487900810 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0145213403000309 25% of sibling are dead in that second study. 25%!!! Unbelievable ruling. Chilling. Wrong.

  2. MELISA EVA VALUE INVESTMENT Greetings to you from Melisa Eva Value Investment. We offer Business and Personal loans, it is quick and easy and hence can be availed without any hassle. We do not ask for any collateral or guarantors while approving these loans and hence these loans require minimum documentation. We offer great and competitive interest rates of 2% which do not weigh you down too much. These loans have a comfortable pay-back period. Apply today by contacting us on E-mail: melisaeva9@gmail.com WE DO NOT ASK FOR AN UPFRONT FEE. BEWARE OF SCAMMERS AND ONLINE FRAUD.

  3. Mr. Levin says that the BMV engaged in misconduct--that the BMV (or, rather, someone in the BMV) knew Indiana motorists were being overcharged fees but did nothing to correct the situation. Such misconduct, whether engaged in by one individual or by a group, is called theft (defined as knowingly or intentionally exerting unauthorized control over the property of another person with the intent to deprive the other person of the property's value or use). Theft is a crime in Indiana (as it still is in most of the civilized world). One wonders, then, why there have been no criminal prosecutions of BMV officials for this theft? Government misconduct doesn't occur in a vacuum. An individual who works for or oversees a government agency is responsible for the misconduct. In this instance, somebody (or somebodies) with the BMV, at some time, knew Indiana motorists were being overcharged. What's more, this person (or these people), even after having the error of their ways pointed out to them, did nothing to fix the problem. Instead, the overcharges continued. Thus, the taxpayers of Indiana are also on the hook for the millions of dollars in attorneys fees (for both sides; the BMV didn't see fit to avail itself of the services of a lawyer employed by the state government) that had to be spent in order to finally convince the BMV that stealing money from Indiana motorists was a bad thing. Given that the BMV official(s) responsible for this crime continued their misconduct, covered it up, and never did anything until the agency reached an agreeable settlement, it seems the statute of limitations for prosecuting these folks has not yet run. I hope our Attorney General is paying attention to this fiasco and is seriously considering prosecution. Indiana, the state that works . . . for thieves.

  4. I'm glad that attorney Carl Hayes, who represented the BMV in this case, is able to say that his client "is pleased to have resolved the issue". Everyone makes mistakes, even bureaucratic behemoths like Indiana's BMV. So to some extent we need to be forgiving of such mistakes. But when those mistakes are going to cost Indiana taxpayers millions of dollars to rectify (because neither plaintiff's counsel nor Mr. Hayes gave freely of their services, and the BMV, being a state-funded agency, relies on taxpayer dollars to pay these attorneys their fees), the agency doesn't have a right to feel "pleased to have resolved the issue". One is left wondering why the BMV feels so pleased with this resolution? The magnitude of the agency's overcharges might suggest to some that, perhaps, these errors were more than mere oversight. Could this be why the agency is so "pleased" with this resolution? Will Indiana motorists ever be assured that the culture of incompetence (if not worse) that the BMV seems to have fostered is no longer the status quo? Or will even more "overcharges" and lawsuits result? It's fairly obvious who is really "pleased to have resolved the issue", and it's not Indiana's taxpayers who are on the hook for the legal fees generated in these cases.

  5. From the article's fourth paragraph: "Her work underscores the blurry lines in Russia between the government and businesses . . ." Obviously, the author of this piece doesn't pay much attention to the "blurry lines" between government and businesses that exist in the United States. And I'm not talking only about Trump's alleged conflicts of interest. When lobbyists for major industries (pharmaceutical, petroleum, insurance, etc) have greater access to this country's elected representatives than do everyday individuals (i.e., voters), then I would say that the lines between government and business in the United States are just as blurry, if not more so, than in Russia.

ADVERTISEMENT