An attorney who works for a telecommunications cooperative in Hancock County has seen many changes since he was admitted
to the Indiana Bar in June 1988.
Michael R. Burrow of Hancock Telecom enjoys the various aspects of his post, including overseeing
a contract for licensing rights for company spokescat, Garfield. (IL Photo/ Perry Reichanadter)
After graduating from Ball State University and Indiana University School of Law – Indianapolis, Michael R. Burrow
clerked for a federal magistrate in Indianapolis. He turned down offers at large firms in the city to work at a small firm
– named Wolf & Burrow after he joined – in his hometown of Greenfield. But more than a decade ago his client,
now known as Hancock Telecom, hired him to work full time for the company as counsel and in a management role.
It wasn’t an easy sell to leave private practice. He’d enjoyed taking on appellate cases and representing
clients other than Hancock Telecom and knew he’d take a pay cut to leave. But part of the deal was he would bring with
him his legal assistant, Kim Gerard, and that the company president at the time would agree to stay for at least five years,
he said.
While Gerard is still a member of the legal department for Hancock Telecom and is also the benefits administrator, the president
who hired Burrow in early 1999 left in September 2000.
However, Burrow said, Tim Hills, who has been president and CEO of Hancock Telecom and its subsidiaries since Jan. 29, 2001,
has been an “incredible match” for him and the company.
Burrow, who served as interim president before Hills’s arrival, was eventually named the company’s vice president
– a role he continues to have in addition to general counsel.
Since he started at Hancock Telecom in 1999, Burrow has witnessed changes in the telecommunications field. While wires for
telephone service used to take up entire rooms at the company’s facilities, those rooms now house wires that provide
access to high-speed Internet connections, receivers for satellite television feeds, and data storage components that contain
important back up information for businesses – including law firms and hospitals – that were virtually unimaginable
until recent years.
The company also serves businesses and residences outside of Hancock County from its Greenfield headquarters through the
Indiana Fiber Network, which consists of 20 companies and more than 1,700 miles of fiber-optic cable, and Indiana Video Network,
a partnership with other telephone companies that provide satellite television service to customers.
On a tour of the plant, it is easy to see Burrow’s interest and excitement for how much things have changed in the
industry.
A tour also reveals to visitors the company has an internationally known spokescat: Garfield.
Burrow oversaw a contract for licensing rights for Hancock Telecom to use Garfield in company marketing when the company
was struggling with its identity. Everyone recognized a blue stripe under the company’s name on logos, but the company
realized it was growing and wanted something more marketable.
While working with marketing consultant Jill Snyder, who lives in Cumberland and has represented a number of Indianapolis-based
technology firms, she suggested Garfield after she saw an original illustration of a cartoon telephone.
During the meeting with Garfield’s creator Jim Davis at his studio in Albany, about 15 miles outside of Muncie, Davis
sketched a prototype of Garfield answering a phone. That prototype and countless other images of Garfield decorate Hancock
Telecom’s offices, service vehicles, and even signs in the visitor parking lot.
“When we met with Jim Davis, he embraced the idea,” Burrow said, adding Davis understood the concept of a rural
co-op telecommunications community because he grew up in a rural community himself.
“When we got a proposal a couple weeks later, it was very affordable,” Burrow added.
The company’s second three-year contract with Davis’ company, Paws, is about to expire, but Burrow said he expects
it to be renewed as the current three-year contract didn’t have many changes from the first contract.
Another more recent change he is involved with is an ongoing merger between Hancock Telecom and the local electricity utility,
also a cooperative, Central Indiana Power.
Cut line goes here.
Because there was no existing statute regarding whether a rural co-op electrical utility could merge with a rural co-op telecommunications
company, Burrows and attorney Larry Wallace of Parr Richey Obremskey Frandsen & Patterson in Indianapolis considered the
issue. The two attorneys have worked together for 20 years on regulatory issues for Hancock Telecom.
“One of the very valuable things an in-house attorney brings to a business, and especially a fast growing business
in a highly competitive and complex environment like telecommunications, is the early identification of potential legal issues
that might not otherwise have been recognized soon enough by operations management,” Wallace said via e-mail. “My
impression is (he) has been especially valuable to Hancock Telecom in this regard.”
Burrow added Douglas M. Kinser of Hall Render Killian Heath & Lyman in Indianapolis helped to shepherd Senate Enrolled
Act 126 through the legislature. SEA 126 goes into effect July 1, allowing the merger to happen.
Burrow said the merger would not eliminate jobs because the two co-ops provide different services. If anything, it will help
the community because the electricity co-op has been using a customer service phone-line provider that’s based in another
Midwestern state, while Hancock Telecom can offer the same service while keeping those payments in Greenfield. He said the
companies plan to cross-train employees following the merger.
Because he is from Greenfield, on this merger and on other contracts he has worked, Burrow said he knows what others in the
community want.
“Some lawyers might do a 50-page, bullet-proof contract, but knowing Hancock County, I know they would want
everything to be simple, straightforward, and no more than two pages,” he said.
He said the company has never been sued over a contract that he’s aware of.
As for taking the general counsel job and giving up work in a firm, Burrow said, “It’s been rewarding beyond
my expectations. That’s not to say there aren’t days that are stressful, but I still enjoy it.”
He also said he enjoys contributing to the company’s growth, which is part of a “virtuous circle” for the
company and the community he calls home. As the company grows and provides more jobs, more people will move to Greenfield
and the town will also grow.
“I like to think that a rising tide carries all ships,” he said.
Burrow said he’s also proud of a grant his client recently received to connect rural hospitals to fiber-optic data
services, making it possible for rural hospitals to communicate better with other hospitals.
Wallace also acknowledged Burrow’s contributions to Hancock Telecom.
“Perhaps some ‘outside’ counsel feel threatened when a client brings another attorney in-house, but my
experience, especially in working with Mike, is that needn’t be the case,” Wallace said. “… Mike
has shown me that smaller businesses and the outside counsel they still rely on for many matters can benefit from having in-house
counsel as much, and in many ways even more than large companies.”•














G. Michael Witte letter states he's suspended for three years. The case that got him suspended is identical to my estate case, including havin the Late Judge Deiter recuse himself because Newman had a conflict of interest with the judge. His Modus Operandi is nearly identical.
SIGNED BY G. MICHAEL WITTE EXECUTIVE SECRETARY INDIANA SUPREME COURT DISCIPLINARY COMMISSION DATED MAY 17, 2012.
Your 6th complaint against Lawrence T. Newman filed on 4/12/2012. On 1/31/12, the Indiana Supreme Court entered an order suspending Lawrence T. Newman’s law license for a period of three years. More important, even after three years, Lawrence Todd Newman will not get his license back unless and until he goes through a separate proceeding to prove that he is fit to practice law. This is not an easy process, and the burden is upon Lawrence T. Newman to prove by clear and convincing evidence that he is fit to return to practice.
Because of the length of Lawrence T. Newman’s license suspension and the fact he may never succeed in getting his law license reinstated, we are not opening an investigation file at this time.
Should Lawrence T. Newman seek reinstatement in the future, we will open your file and ask Lawrence T. Newman to address your grievance as part of his burden of proving fitness. We have attempted to notify Lawrence T. Newman that this will be required of him.
It may disappoint you to hear that we will be doing nothing on your grievance at this time. However, the most our office can ever accomplish is to take away a lawyer’s license to practice law. We have already done that, albeit as a result of misconduct in cases other than your own. It makes better sense for our office to focus its limited resources on cases where the lawyers are still actively practicing law.
Is there any justice in the Marion County Superior Court Civil Division? I am the unfortunate victim of a retaliatory lawsuit brought by Lawrence Todd Newman, the attorney from an estate case on which I worked as a unsupervised personal representative in 2006. The contract agreement for that case stated that the estate would be responsible for all attorney fees, but Newman refused to close the nearly insolvent estate when my duties were complete and his fees were paid. Instead, he tried to extort additional attorney fees from me by keeping the case open to address a wrongful death claim, despite the estate’s heir’s lack of interest in pursuing it and an expert doctor’s opinion that it would not be worth doing so. He also knowingly deceived me into believing that a “closing statement” was needed to close the estate, even though this requirement had actually been waived by the estate’s heir. The heir’s attorney filed a motion to have Newman removed from the case. After the court closed the probate case with prejudice (barred from further litigation) Newman illegally re-opened the case in another courtroom.
As a result of complaints filed against him for these and similar actions, Newman has been suspended from practicing law for 18 months by the Indiana Disciplinary Commission. In retaliation, he has filed suit against me demanding additional attorney fees for the 2006 estate case, despite the fact that I made no agreement stating that I would pay any fees from my own assets on behalf of the estate. This lawsuit violates the rules of ethics, due process of law, and equal protection of law. Newman has been allowed to file ridiculous pleadings at an alarming rate and has been supported by a biased court system. Judge Carroll refuses to recuse himself from the case despite the fact that, by his own admission, he intends to grant Newman sanctions regardless of the evidence. When my former counsel discovered that the previous judge on the case, Judge Sosin, was a long-time close friend of Newman’s family, Judge Carroll commented for the record during a hearing that Judge Sosin in so many words “he finds the door “was weak for recusing himself from the case as a result of this obvious conflict of interest.
This case is a public policy issue. Statutes put in place to protect unsupervised personal representatives in probate matters are being ignored. This case will affect thousands of individuals involved in probating and the personal representation of estates. Justice cannot possibly be served as long as a biased judge is allowed to defend a “vexatious litigant,” as Newman has been described by Judge Logan in Bradenton, Florida court. If there is any justice in the Marion County Superior Court Civil Division, this case against me will be dismissed with prejudice.
Every affront to decency and every style adopted by criminals is not per se a constituttional violation. Only fools believe or espouse that.
This was an unnecessary change in law, a needless fiddling with a tax that impacted very very few hoosiers, but one that erodes a tax base benefitting very many hoosiers. Just because some people wanted to chalk up a "tax cut" on their legislative brag-list, and didnt give a fig about replacing the revenue any other way. Really stupid. I am a republican my whole life and this just shames me like hell. I have to use a fake name over this because I know my fellow republicans are all brain washed over tax cutting too.