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

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. So that none are misinformed by my posting wihtout a non de plume here, please allow me to state that I am NOT an Indiana licensed attorney, although I am an Indiana resident approved to practice law and represent clients in Indiana's fed court of Nth Dist and before the 7th circuit. I remain licensed in KS, since 1996, no discipline. This must be clarified since the IN court records will reveal that I did sit for and pass the Indiana bar last February. Yet be not confused by the fact that I was so allowed to be tested .... I am not, to be clear in the service of my duty to be absolutely candid about this, I AM NOT a member of the Indiana bar, and might never be so licensed given my unrepented from errors of thought documented in this opinion, at fn2, which likely supports Mr Smith's initial post in this thread: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-7th-circuit/1592921.html

  2. When I served the State of Kansas as Deputy AG over Consumer Protection & Antitrust for four years, supervising 20 special agents and assistant attorneys general (back before the IBLE denied me the right to practice law in Indiana for not having the right stuff and pretty much crushed my legal career) we had a saying around the office: Resist the lure of the ring!!! It was a take off on Tolkiem, the idea that absolute power (I signed investigative subpoenas as a judge would in many other contexts, no need to show probable cause)could corrupt absolutely. We feared that we would overreach constitutional limits if not reminded, over and over, to be mindful to not do so. Our approach in so challenging one another was Madisonian, as the following quotes from the Father of our Constitution reveal: The essence of Government is power; and power, lodged as it must be in human hands, will ever be liable to abuse. We are right to take alarm at the first experiment upon our liberties. I believe there are more instances of the abridgement of freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments by those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations. Liberty may be endangered by the abuse of liberty, but also by the abuse of power. All men having power ought to be mistrusted. -- James Madison, Federalist Papers and other sources: http://www.constitution.org/jm/jm_quotes.htm RESIST THE LURE OF THE RING ALL YE WITH POLITICAL OR JUDICIAL POWER!

  3. My dear Mr Smith, I respect your opinions and much enjoy your posts here. We do differ on our view of the benefits and viability of the American Experiment in Ordered Liberty. While I do agree that it could be better, and that your points in criticism are well taken, Utopia does indeed mean nowhere. I think Madison, Jefferson, Adams and company got it about as good as it gets in a fallen post-Enlightenment social order. That said, a constitution only protects the citizens if it is followed. We currently have a bevy of public officials and judicial agents who believe that their subjectivism, their personal ideology, their elitist fears and concerns and cause celebs trump the constitutions of our forefathers. This is most troubling. More to follow in the next post on that subject.

  4. Yep I am not Bryan Brown. Bryan you appear to be a bigger believer in the Constitution than I am. Were I still a big believer then I might be using my real name like you. Personally, I am no longer a fan of secularism. I favor the confessional state. In religious mattes, it seems to me that social diversity is chaos and conflict, while uniformity is order and peace.... secularism has been imposed by America on other nations now by force and that has not exactly worked out very well.... I think the American historical experiment with disestablishmentarianism is withering on the vine before our eyes..... Since I do not know if that is OK for an officially licensed lawyer to say, I keep the nom de plume.

  5. I am compelled to announce that I am not posting under any Smith monikers here. That said, the post below does have a certain ring to it that sounds familiar to me: http://www.catholicnewworld.com/cnwonline/2014/0907/cardinal.aspx

ADVERTISEMENT