ILNews

Firm dissolving as some attorneys go to Bose McKinney & Evans

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A mid-sized Indianapolis law firm more than two decades old is dissolving as most of the lawyers are leaving for one of the city’s largest firms at the end of the year.

Five partners and four associates from Tabbert Hahn Earnest & Weddle are joining Bose McKinney & Evans at the beginning of the year, both firms have confirmed with Indiana Lawyer. Another partner left last week to create her own family law practice on the north side of Indianapolis, which means only four active members will remain once the move happens Jan. 1.

Those lawyers leaving for Bose are: name partners Gregory Hahn and Robert Weddle, partners Matthew W. Conner, Mary M. Ruth Feldhake, and Chad T. Walker, and the four associates David J. Duncan, Joel T. Nagle, Kevin M. Quinn and Elizabeth Schuerman.

With the firm for more than 20 years, Hahn described this as more of a business combination than a merger and said it’s been under discussion since about mid-October.

“Overall as a law firm, we have a number of national and international clients and this just gives us a bigger platform to represent those interests,” he said. "I'm very excited about this. They're great lawyers and have a great reputation, and this combo will help everyone go to a bigger plateau."

Bose spokesman Roger Harvey on Friday confirmed that nine attorneys would be joining that law firm, but he declined to answer any specifics about the move or how it transpired until after the news had been announced publicly. He also cited concerns about not speaking for attorneys who are not yet a part of Bose, though the current staff and lawyers received notice about the new hires by a company-wide e-mail Thursday afternoon.

 Hahn and Weddle said that it was both the public affairs and medical litigation fields that drew the firms together.

On its website, Tabbert Hahn Earnest & Weddle lists companies in the medical, insurance, and gaming industries as some of its clients, as well as the city of Indianapolis. The departing attorneys practice in varying fields, from medical malpractice and product liability to gaming and insurance defense litigation. Now they will join those practice groups within a larger law firm that Indianapolis Business Journal listed earlier this year as the fifth largest. IBJ is Indiana Lawyer’s sister publication, as both entities are owned by IBJ Media.

Weddle, with the firm for 14 years and practicing in the medical malpractice and pharmaceutical defense areas, said that Bose wanted to expand that area of focus and this allows them to do that.

This also means that the governmental affairs affiliate known as Tabbert Hahn Ping Global Strategies will become an ancillary organization of Bose McKinney & Evans, taking on the new name of Bose Ping Government Strategies. Jennifer Ping will serve as principal of the new entity while others will work closely with the larger law firm's public affairs and communications group known as Bose Public Affairs Group.

Hahn described Bose as having one of the biggest and best governmental affairs groups statewide, possibly even in the Midwest, and said this union matched well for everyone involved.

With all but four leaving, the remaining attorneys are name partner Lante K. Earnest, partners David Shelton and Robert Daniels, and associate Mark Pizur. Co-founder Don A. Tabbert, who is in his 80s and mostly retired, remains as of counsel along with Joseph Hammes and Alan Nelson.

Partner Judy Tyrrell left Dec. 1 to establish her own family law-focused firm on the north side of Indianapolis at Keystone at the Crossing.

Those remaining three partners plan to go off on their own and it's not sure at this time what they may do, according to Weddle. A date has not yet been established for an official dissolution of the firm, he said.

This story will be updated in today's Indiana Lawyer daily and the Dec. 8 edition of IL, with more on the history of the mid-sized firm and reasons leading up to this change.
 

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 practitioners and judges who hail E-filing as the Saviour of the West need to contain their respective excitements. E-filing is federal court requires the practitioner to cram his motion practice into pigeonholes created by IT people. Compound motions or those seeking alternative relief are effectively barred, unless the practitioner wants to receive a tart note from some functionary admonishing about the "problem". E-filing is just another method by which courts and judges transfer their burden to practitioners, who are the really the only powerless components of the system. Of COURSE it is easier for the court to require all of its imput to conform to certain formats, but this imposition does NOT improve the quality of the practice of law and does NOT improve the ability of the practitioner to advocate for his client or to fashion pleadings that exactly conform to his client's best interests. And we should be very wary of the disingenuous pablum about the costs. The courts will find a way to stick it to the practitioner. Lake County is a VERY good example of this rapaciousness. Any one who does not believe this is invited to review the various special fees that system imposes upon practitioners- as practitioners- and upon each case ON TOP of the court costs normal in every case manually filed. Jurisprudence according to Aldous Huxley.

  2. Any attorneys who practice in federal court should be able to say the same as I can ... efiling is great. I have been doing it in fed court since it started way back. Pacer has its drawbacks, but the ability to hit an e-docket and pull up anything and everything onscreen is a huge plus for a litigator, eps the sole practitioner, who lacks a filing clerk and the paralegal support of large firms. Were I an Indiana attorney I would welcome this great step forward.

  3. Can we get full disclosure on lobbyist's payments to legislatures such as Mr Buck? AS long as there are idiots that are disrespectful of neighbors and intent on shooting fireworks every night, some kind of regulations are needed.

  4. I am the mother of the child in this case. My silence on the matter was due to the fact that I filed, both in Illinois and Indiana, child support cases. I even filed supporting documentation with the Indiana family law court. Not sure whether this information was provided to the court of appeals or not. Wish the case was done before moving to Indiana, because no matter what, there is NO WAY the state of Illinois would have allowed an appeal on a child support case!

  5. "No one is safe when the Legislature is in session."

ADVERTISEMENT