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. Future generations will be amazed that we prosecuted people for possessing a harmless plant. The New York Times came out in favor of legalization in Saturday's edition of the newspaper.

  2. Well, maybe it's because they are unelected, and, they have a tendency to strike down laws by elected officials from all over the country. When you have been taught that "Democracy" is something almost sacred, then, you will have a tendency to frown on such imperious conduct. Lawyers get acculturated in law school into thinking that this is the very essence of high minded government, but to people who are more heavily than King George ever did, they may not like it. Thanks for the information.

  3. I pd for a bankruptcy years ago with Mr Stiles and just this week received a garnishment from my pay! He never filed it even though he told me he would! Don't let this guy practice law ever again!!!

  4. Excellent initiative on the part of the AG. Thankfully someone takes action against predators taking advantage of people who have already been through the wringer. Well done!

  5. Conour will never turn these funds over to his defrauded clients. He tearfully told the court, and his daughters dutifully pledged in interviews, that his first priority is to repay every dime of the money he stole from his clients. Judge Young bought it, much to the chagrin of Conour’s victims. Why would Conour need the $2,262 anyway? Taxpayers are now supporting him, paying for his housing, utilities, food, healthcare, and clothing. If Conour puts the money anywhere but in the restitution fund, he’s proved, once again, what a con artist he continues to be and that he has never had any intention of repaying his clients. Judge Young will be proven wrong... again; Conour has no remorse and the Judge is one of the many conned.

ADVERTISEMENT