Law firm first

March 30, 2009
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

An Indiana law firm has said it let some employees go because of the economy. Bose McKinney & Evans in Indianapolis sent out a press release last week saying 10 attorneys, two paralegals, and 13 support staff had been let go due to the recession and weakening client demand.



This is the first time a law firm here has publicly admitted to laying off staff and attorneys because of the economy. There weren’t a lot of details, but at least the firm said something.


We’ve discussed attorney and staff layoffs often in this blog, and noted in one post that although we have heard rumors that attorneys were being laid off, without confirmation from the firm, we won’t run a story.



Those that did announce staff layoffs earlier this year wouldn’t say the layoffs were related to the economy, but for other reasons. Perhaps the economy isn’t causing layoffs at other firms, and Indianapolis and our state does have a fairly stable market compared to other areas. But if the economy really had an impact on staff or attorney layoffs, are the firms doing a disservice to their former workers by saying performance or some other reason caused their terminations?



A story about the cuts in the upcoming issue of IL quotes an Indiana University Maurer School of Law – Bloomington professor as saying some firms cut staff because of the economy but say the layoffs are because of performance. When a firm claims staff was cut due to performance reasons, it makes it harder on the person when they have to discuss the job loss with potential employers. It’s much easier to tell a potential employer you were let go because of the economy, not because of performance reasons, he said.



What do you think about Bose’s announcement? Are more to come from other firms or is this an isolated event?

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. The fee increase would be livable except for the 11% increase in spending at the Disciplinary Commission. The Commission should be focused on true public harm rather than going on witch hunts against lawyers who dare to criticize judges.

  2. Marijuana is safer than alcohol. AT the time the 1937 Marijuana Tax Act was enacted all major pharmaceutical companies in the US sold marijuana products. 11 Presidents of the US have smoked marijuana. Smoking it does not increase the likelihood that you will get lung cancer. There are numerous reports of canabis oil killing many kinds of incurable cancer. (See Rick Simpson's Oil on the internet or facebook).

  3. The US has 5% of the world's population and 25% of the world's prisoners. Far too many people are sentenced for far too many years in prison. Many of the federal prisoners are sentenced for marijuana violations. Marijuana is safer than alcohol.

  4. My daughter was married less than a week and her new hubbys picture was on tv for drugs and now I havent't seen my granddaughters since st patricks day. when my daughter left her marriage from her childrens Father she lived with me with my grand daughters and that was ok but I called her on the new hubby who is in jail and said didn't want this around my grandkids not unreasonable request and I get shut out for her mistake

  5. From the perspective of a practicing attorney, it sounds like this masters degree in law for non-attorneys will be useless to anyone who gets it. "However, Ted Waggoner, chair of the ISBA’s Legal Education Conclave, sees the potential for the degree program to actually help attorneys do their jobs better. He pointed to his practice at Peterson Waggoner & Perkins LLP in Rochester and how some clients ask their attorneys to do work, such as filling out insurance forms, that they could do themselves. Waggoner believes the individuals with the legal master’s degrees could do the routine, mundane business thus freeing the lawyers to do the substantive legal work." That is simply insulting to suggest that someone with a masters degree would work in a role that is subpar to even an administrative assistant. Even someone with just a certificate or associate's degree in paralegal studies would be overqualified to sit around helping clients fill out forms. Anyone who has a business background that they think would be enhanced by having a legal background will just go to law school, or get an MBA (which typically includes a business law class that gives a generic, broad overview of legal concepts). No business-savvy person would ever seriously consider this ridiculous master of law for non-lawyers degree. It reeks of desperation. The only people I see getting it are the ones who did not get into law school, who see the degree as something to add to their transcript in hopes of getting into a JD program down the road.

ADVERTISEMENT