We don’t publish rumors

January 5, 2009
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
Today's blog is from IL managing editor Betsy Brockett:

Day after day, we read stories in the National Law Journal and other legal publications about how the tumultuous economy has hit the legal profession again and again. Even close to home, judges and attorneys talk about how hard the Indiana legal community has been hit. Some trial court judges have had to fight budget cuts just to keep their courts running smoothly. Budgets and the bottom lines aren’t on the minds of just law firm management.

Yes, the Indiana legal community has been hit hard … or so we’ve heard, but we’re not in the business of publishing rumors.

In recent months a judge wondered why we haven’t been covering how hard the downturn has impacted our legal professionals. We’ve published stories about the sour economy and various sectors of the legal community for several issues now.

Recently, a lawyer called the office wanting to know the scoop about the layoffs in Indianapolis. Well, we hear the rumors, too. Some even merit investigation.

Associate positions cut. Summer associate programs cut or trimmed. Administrative/support staff reduced. Non-equity partners let go. We’ve heard it all. The problem: the people in positions to address the rumors have chosen to ignore the opportunity to set the record straight.

People wear their rose-colored glasses when they talk with us. No one will name names. Some firms claim any changes are just a result of regular housecleaning or an annual shakeup.

Yes, we understand it’s about public perception and local, state, regional, national reputation … and the bottom line. But IL’s job is to cover our local legal community, which also is our readership. There is a legitimate way and reason to report any such happenings – talk with us about such decisions, about the strength of your commitment to being responsible to your clients and partners.

Sure, times may be tough, but claiming all is rosy can sometimes be counterproductive as rumors grow and exacerbate any bad perceptions. Honest explanations can often stall the rumor mill, garner support … and maybe even help people.

How? Because if people share how they’re combating this economy’s negative effects, someone else may learn something that helps them or someone may be able to help with the problem.

If people – individuals or corporate clients – mistake a shoring up of expenses as something more serious like an impending implosion, the truth is much better than rampant rumors.

You want the news. We’re trying to deliver. And the truth doesn’t always hurt.
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. 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