ILNews

Bose lays off lawyers

Elizabeth Brockett
April 1, 2009
Keywords
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
Economic Impact

Bose McKinney & Evans, Indianapolis’ fifth largest law firm, is cutting 25 employees, including 10 attorneys, because of the recession.

This is the first public announcement in Indiana of any lawyer layoffs as a result of the economic downturn.

Ken Crook, Bose managing partner, said the “reduction in force” would affect two paralegals and 13 support staff in addition to the attorney cuts â?? all at the downtown Indianapolis office. He announced the cuts March 26 and told Indiana Lawyer they would be effective within a week. The layoffs affected employees in the litigation, business, real estate, and intellectual property practice groups.

CrookCrook said the recession continues to affect the firm’s clients and therefore certain practices within the firm. He added, “the silver lining, if there is one” is the realign- ment will help position the firm to continue to effectively serve its clients into the future.

Firm management met with employees the day the cuts were announced to discuss how the layoffs will impact the firm. Crook said they provided some more information about the reduction beyond what was formally announced. He declined to talk more about what employees were told.

He also said there was no correlation that the reduction came near the end of the first quarter, and he declined to talk about how the firm decided which positions to cut.
These cuts are on top of the 11 administrative and operational staff positions the firm eliminated in January.

Other Indiana firms have also reduced support staff in recent months but deny those were because of the tumultuous economy.

Many other firms nationally are making similar cuts because of the economy and these measures are painful but necessary, Crook said.

Looking ahead, he anticipates the economy will be soft through 2009. However, the firm will continue its summer associate program.

Bose McKinney & Evans had 137 attorneys as of Jan. 22, 2009, according to the Indianapolis Business Journal’s list of largest Indianapolis-area law firms. The firm has two offices each in Indianapolis and Northwest Indiana and one each in West Lafayette, Washington, D.C., and Raleigh, N.C.

Every law firm

Don’t read too much into the Indianapolis attorney layoffs, said William Henderson, associate professor of law at Indiana University Maurer School of Law â?? Bloomington and director of the Law Firms Working Group, a research network devoted to the study of the law firm.

“Every corporate law firm in the country is experiencing a downturn because their clients are,” Henderson said.

Henderson said that for a mid-size, Midwest market, Indianapolis’ market is stronger than most.

Most law firms are based on a model that requires firm growth, he said, but it’s one that doesn’t work well with today’s economy. As firms build their workforce, they also incur more costs â?? more people, more space, more technology.

“Clients are hurting for cash flow so they’re looking at their legal budgets for the first time,” said Henderson, who rhetorically asked where money is going to come from to support all firm’s attorneys if there’s no increased revenue and the work isn’t there.

There’s no way of counting how many attorneys have been let go in Indiana or nationwide because many firms make cuts with no public announcements and say it’s because of performance, even if it’s really because of the economy, said Henderson. That reasoning makes it harder for those who have lost their jobs, he believes.

“I’d rather be let go because of the economy. The reason is less hurtful and painful than a stealth layoff,” said Henderson, noting that it’s easier to tell a potential employer you were let go because of the economy than for performance.

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. Indianapolis employers harassment among minorities AFRICAN Americans needs to be discussed the metro Indianapolis area is horrible when it comes to harassing African American employees especially in the local healthcare facilities. Racially profiling in the workplace is an major issue. Please make it better because I'm many civil rights leaders would come here and justify that Indiana is a state the WORKS only applies to Caucasian Americans especially in Hamilton county. Indiana targets African Americans in the workplace so when governor pence is trying to convince people to vote for him this would be awesome publicity for the Presidency Elections.

  2. Wishing Mary Willis only God's best, and superhuman strength, as she attempts to right a ship that too often strays far off course. May she never suffer this personal affect, as some do who attempt to change a broken system: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QojajMsd2nE

  3. Indiana's seatbelt law is not punishable as a crime. It is an infraction. Apparently some of our Circuit judges have deemed settled law inapplicable if it fails to fit their litmus test of political correctness. Extrapolating to redefine terms of behavior in a violation of immigration law to the entire body of criminal law leaves a smorgasbord of opportunity for judicial mischief.

  4. I wonder if $10 diversions for failure to wear seat belts are considered moral turpitude in federal immigration law like they are under Indiana law? Anyone know?

  5. What a fine article, thank you! I can testify firsthand and by detailed legal reports (at end of this note) as to the dire consequences of rejecting this truth from the fine article above: "The inclusion and expansion of this right [to jury] in Indiana’s Constitution is a clear reflection of our state’s intention to emphasize the importance of every Hoosier’s right to make their case in front of a jury of their peers." Over $20? Every Hoosier? Well then how about when your very vocation is on the line? How about instead of a jury of peers, one faces a bevy of political appointees, mini-czars, who care less about due process of the law than the real czars did? Instead of trial by jury, trial by ideological ordeal run by Orwellian agents? Well that is built into more than a few administrative law committees of the Ind S.Ct., and it is now being weaponized, as is revealed in articles posted at this ezine, to root out post moderns heresies like refusal to stand and pledge allegiance to all things politically correct. My career was burned at the stake for not so saluting, but I think I was just one of the early logs. Due, at least in part, to the removal of the jury from bar admission and bar discipline cases, many more fires will soon be lit. Perhaps one awaits you, dear heretic? Oh, at that Ind. article 12 plank about a remedy at law for every damage done ... ah, well, the founders evidently meant only for those damages done not by the government itself, rabid statists that they were. (Yes, that was sarcasm.) My written reports available here: Denied petition for cert (this time around): http://tinyurl.com/zdmawmw Denied petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): http://tinyurl.com/zcypybh Related, not written by me: Amicus brief: http://tinyurl.com/hvh7qgp

ADVERTISEMENT