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

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. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  2. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  3. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  4. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

  5. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

ADVERTISEMENT