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 need an experienced attorney to handle a breach of contract matter. Kindly respond for more details. Graham Young

  2. I thought the slurs were the least grave aspects of her misconduct, since they had nothing to do with her being on the bench. Why then do I suspect they were the focus? I find this a troubling trend. At least she was allowed to keep her law license.

  3. Section 6 of Article I of the Indiana Constitution is pretty clear and unequivocal: "Section 6. No money shall be drawn from the treasury for the benefit of any religious or theological institution."

  4. Video pen? Nice work, "JW"! Let this be a lesson and a caution to all disgruntled ex-spouses (or soon-to-be ex-spouses) . . . you may think that altercation is going to get you some satisfaction . . . it will not.

  5. First comment on this thread is a fitting final comment on this thread, as that the MCBA never answered Duncan's fine question, and now even Eric Holder agrees that the MCBA was in material error as to the facts: "I don't get it" from Duncan December 1, 2014 5:10 PM "The Grand Jury met for 25 days and heard 70 hours of testimony according to this article and they made a decision that no crime occurred. On what basis does the MCBA conclude that their decision was "unjust"? What special knowledge or evidence does the MCBA have that the Grand Jury hearing this matter was unaware of? The system that we as lawyers are sworn to uphold made a decision that there was insufficient proof that officer committed a crime. How can any of us say we know better what was right than the jury that actually heard all of the the evidence in this case."

ADVERTISEMENT