ILNews

Before Stewart & Irwin closed, lawyers talked about mergers

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A nine-decade-old Indianapolis law firm’s abrupt closure remains unexplained as Stewart & Irwin P.C.’s leadership declined to discuss what led to the decision.

“It’s not important to go into,” said former Stewart & Irwin President Mary Schmid, now general counsel for Kleenco Maintenance/Construction Inc. in Alexandria.

Stewart & Irwin ceased practice without a public statement or acknowledgement. In early June, its top-floor offices at 251 E. Ohio St. in Indianapolis were locked after a private gathering a few days prior for people who had worked there.

Representatives of some clients listed on the firm’s website who spoke to IL on condition of anonymity said they received notice letters from the firm just a few days before its closing at the end of May. Those clients said they continue to have relationships with former Stewart & Irwin lawyers who moved on to different firms.

While Schmid and others in the firm’s leadership said nothing about the firm’s closing before and after it happened, rumors had swirled for weeks. Many attorneys, including equity shareholders, had been seeking an exit for months.

“This is something that came about somewhat gradually,”

said Donn Wray, a former Stewart & Irwin equity shareholder and one of six attorneys who migrated to Katz & Korin P.C. He called Stewart & Irwin’s decision to close “a natural consolidation of the legal marketplace.” Before the firm closed, Stewart & Irwin’s website listed 24 lawyers, including 13 shareholders and equity shareholders, about one-third fewer than five years earlier.

Multiple sources said that Stewart & Irwin and other firms had engaged in merger discussions dating back a year or more, but none worked out.

Several lawyers landed with Bose McKinney & Evans LLP. “We actually had begun discussions with various Stewart & Irwin attorneys over a year ago, and we were exploring different options,” Bose managing partner Jeff Gaither said.

“My sense is that Stewart & Irwin spoke to a number of different firms, including Bose, about potential mergers or about acquiring larger groups of attorneys, and that led to where we are,” he said.

Meanwhile, a former Stewart & Irwin of counsel attorney has sued the firm and former equity shareholders, claiming hundreds of thousands of dollars in fees owed to him were wrongly withheld. Former firm partners said the complaint was baseless and unrelated to the closing.

Scott Treadway, now in private practice in Carmel, filed the pro se complaint alleging breach of contract and unjust enrichment in Marion Superior Court in May, noting in the complaint Stewart & Irwin’s rumored closing.

Treadway claims in the suit that he maintained his legal practice separate from Stewart & Irwin and rarely performed legal services for the firm. But he maintained an office there, utilizing the firm’s attorneys on an as-needed basis on cases he says he brought to the firm.

He claims he and the firm had an agreement in which Stewart & Irwin would collect his receivable fees, retain a portion to cover the firm’s administrative costs, then cut him a check for the remainder each month. “I think they found my relationship with them financially beneficial,” he said.

Treadway claims, among other things, that the checks stopped coming after he moved out of the firm’s offices in September 2010. He said he filed the complaint as a last resort when it appeared the firm might be closing. “I had hoped to get this resolved amicably, and it seemed relatively straightforward,” he said.

Schmid said the suit had nothing to do with the decision to close and was “wholly without merit.” Former partners named in the suit said it would be vigorously defended.

Former Stewart & Irwin partner Edward Bielski, who left the firm more than a year ago but is named in Treadway’s complaint, said he wished Treadway well but laughed off the litigation. “All you need is a pen to file a lawsuit in Indiana,” Bielski said. “I haven’t given it an iota of though except a chuckle.”•

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. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  2. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  3. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  4. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

  5. Here's an idea...how about we MORE heavily regulate the law schools to reduce the surplus of graduates, driving starting salaries up for those new grads, so that we can all pay our insane amount of student loans off in a reasonable amount of time and then be able to afford to do pro bono & low-fee work? I've got friends in other industries, radiology for example, and their schools accept a very limited number of students so there will never be a glut of new grads and everyone's pay stays high. For example, my radiologist friend's school accepted just six new students per year.

ADVERTISEMENT