Firm ‘greens’ new space

August 28, 2008
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
Going “green” has been a hot topic for the past couple of years and plenty of Indiana firms are getting in on the act. Firms are seeing more of a focus on environmental and green legal issues, and Ice Miller even started a green practice group earlier this year.

On top of that, many Indiana firms are doing their part to reduce waste and conserve energy by donating old office furniture and books and implementing recycling programs in the office.

Indianapolis-based Bose McKinney & Evans made a point to be as green as possible when they decided to relocate a couple blocks away to a bigger office. Even though the firm will have more square footage, it wants to reduce its environmental footprint as much as possible.

Instead of pitching all their old office furniture and buying new desks, chairs, filing cabinets, etc., the firm is reusing what it can and donating the rest. If the firm has to buy new furniture, the firm is trying to buy as much as they can that is made in Indiana in order to reduce shipping distances, chief marketing officer Jennifer Walker said. The firm also tried to use natural, recycled, and local materials for flooring and wall coverings when possible, featuring Indiana limestone on its reception desk and compressed bamboo flooring in the new conference center.

The firm worked with the contractor preparing their new office space to make sure they reused as much materials as possible, installed Energy Star equipment, auto-shut off faucets in the restrooms, and included more side lights and transoms to bring natural light into the offices.

Kudos to Bose McKinney and all of the other firms for trying to do what they can to conserve energy, recycle, and lessen their firms’ impact on the environment. Yes, “going green” is definitely trendy right now, but it’s a good trend to be a part of and one that will hopefully stick around.
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
  1. 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

  2. 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

  3. 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.

  4. I totally agree with John Smith.

  5. An idea that would harm the public good which is protected by licensing. Might as well abolish doctor and health care professions licensing too. Ridiculous. Unrealistic. Would open the floodgates of mischief and abuse. Even veteranarians are licensed. How has deregulation served the public good in banking, for example? Enough ideology already!

ADVERTISEMENT