ILNews

Attorneys leaving Bingham to form new firm

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Seven attorneys are leaving Indianapolis firm Bingham McHale to form a new insurance litigation firm, a move that one of the departing partners said came as a result of high rates and the large firm's practice group effectively pricing itself out of the market.

An announcement about the Bingham exodus came Tuesday, with those involved describing it as an amicable split that boils down to those attorneys preferring a smaller setting to that of a big Indianapolis firm where overhead costs are higher. Bingham is ranked as the city's fifth largest firm.

On March 1, the group of 17 partners, attorneys, paralegals, and support staff, will form their own firm of Cantrell Strenski & Mehringer - taking the name of longtime Bingham partners Dennis Cantrell and Jim Strenski, as well as of counsel Susan Mehringer who joined the firm in 2007. Of counsel Barbara Jones will also be a partner at the new firm, and attorneys Tara Stapleton Lutes, Anna Muehling Mallon, and Catherine Haines will be associates. Three paralegals and a handful of support staff are leaving, also.

All have been a part of Bingham's insurance litigation practice group, representing insurance companies in coverage and bad-faith litigation as well as defending insureds in third-party litigation. They'll take about 90 percent of their clients, and the new firm will sublease space from Bingham on the 24th floor of the Market Tower Building.

Strenski, who's been at the firm since his summer associate work in 1993, said they've had discussions with Bingham leaders since the second half of 2008. This is an amicable split and no one asked or forced them to leave, he said. Over the years as Bingham has grown, the overhead costs have increased and that's put pressure on partners and attorneys to raise clients' rates, Strenski said.

"In this group, we were at the point where we had some of the highest rates in the city and state and had started to turn down work," he said. "We were pricing ourselves out of the market."

Strenski said the move is difficult, especially for those who've been there longest.

"We're very excited, but it's bittersweet. This law firm is where I was born and raised as an attorney, and it's sad," he said.

Bingham managing partner Tobin McClamroch said this was an amicable split and described it as a good decision on the attorneys' parts, saying law firm leadership respected the attorneys' decision. But he acknowledged it will hurt Bingham because the attorneys are taking most of their individual clients and this will leave the larger firm with a smaller business litigation practice.

"These are very fine lawyers, and whenever you lose people of that quality, it's tough to call this a positive," he said. "It's difficult to categorize the difference we'll see at Bingham, but these attorneys represented the most significant amount of insurance work we had."

The firm will continue representing business clients, including environmental, transactions, litigation, and other miscellaneous insurance work, McClamroch said. He also said this change isn't leading up to anything larger happening at the firm; McClamroch said Bingham isn't planning or gearing up for any merger or acquisition.

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. "So we broke with England for the right to "off" our preborn progeny at will, and allow the processing plant doing the dirty deeds (dirt cheap) to profit on the marketing of those "products of conception." I was completely maleducated on our nation's founding, it would seem. (But I know the ACLU is hard at work to remedy that, too.)" Well, you know, we're just following in the footsteps of our founders who raped women, raped slaves, raped children, maimed immigrants, sold children, stole property, broke promises, broke apart families, killed natives... You know, good God fearing down home Christian folk! :/

  2. Who gives a rats behind about all the fluffy ranking nonsense. What students having to pay off debt need to know is that all schools aren't created equal and students from many schools don't have a snowball's chance of getting a decent paying job straight out of law school. Their lowly ranked lawschool won't tell them that though. When schools start honestly (accurately) reporting *those numbers, things will get interesting real quick, and the looks on student's faces will be priceless!

  3. Whilst it may be true that Judges and Justices enjoy such freedom of time and effort, it certainly does not hold true for the average working person. To say that one must 1) take a day or a half day off work every 3 months, 2) gather a list of information including recent photographs, and 3) set up a time that is convenient for the local sheriff or other such office to complete the registry is more than a bit near-sighted. This may be procedural, and hence, in the near-sighted minds of the court, not 'punishment,' but it is in fact 'punishment.' The local sheriffs probably feel a little punished too by the overwork. Registries serve to punish the offender whilst simultaneously providing the public at large with a false sense of security. The false sense of security is dangerous to the public who may not exercise due diligence by thinking there are no offenders in their locale. In fact, the registry only informs them of those who have been convicted.

  4. Unfortunately, the court doesn't understand the difference between ebidta and adjusted ebidta as they clearly got the ruling wrong based on their misunderstanding

  5. A common refrain in the comments on this website comes from people who cannot locate attorneys willing put justice over retainers. At the same time the judiciary threatens to make pro bono work mandatory, seemingly noting the same concern. But what happens to attorneys who have the chumptzah to threatened the legal status quo in Indiana? Ask Gary Welch, ask Paul Ogden, ask me. Speak truth to power, suffer horrendously accordingly. No wonder Hoosier attorneys who want to keep in good graces merely chase the dollars ... the powers that be have no concerns as to those who are ever for sale to the highest bidder ... for those even willing to compromise for $$$ never allow either justice or constitutionality to cause them to stand up to injustice or unconstitutionality. And the bad apples in the Hoosier barrel, like this one, just keep rotting.

ADVERTISEMENT