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. 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