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. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  2. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  3. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

  4. Here's an idea...how about we MORE heavily regulate the law schools to reduce the surplus of graduates, driving starting salaries up for those new grads, so that we can all pay our insane amount of student loans off in a reasonable amount of time and then be able to afford to do pro bono & low-fee work? I've got friends in other industries, radiology for example, and their schools accept a very limited number of students so there will never be a glut of new grads and everyone's pay stays high. For example, my radiologist friend's school accepted just six new students per year.

  5. I totally agree with John Smith.

ADVERTISEMENT