ILNews

George Rubin's 54 years in law built firm and shaped modern Indianapolis

Dave Stafford
December 18, 2013
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indianapolis was America’s 26th biggest city when George Rubin began his legal career 54 years ago. It’s fair to say Rubin drafted the blueprint that transformed the city into the nation’s 12th largest.

Likewise, the founder of Rubin & Levin P.C. has influenced the growth and development of generations of attorneys.

rubinlevin01-15col.jpg George Rubin co-founded Rubin & Levin P.C. in 1977 with founding partner Elliott Levin. (IL Photo/Aaron P. Bernstein)

As he prepares to retire at the end of the year from a career spanning seven decades, Rubin, 81, can look back on professional accomplishments that place him a few notches above “mover and shaker.”

A state senator from 1969 to 1973, Rubin sponsored the Unigov legislation that created the consolidated city-county government structure for Indianapolis. He said he never imagined at the time that Indianapolis would grow as it has, but he’s not one to take credit.

“Without the right help, this would never have gone through. Dick Lugar was extremely helpful in pushing this through,” he said of the city’s then-mayor. The leadership of Lugar and subsequent mayors William Hudnut and Stephen Goldsmith, “that’s what made the city what it is today,” Rubin said.

Before Rubin left the Statehouse, he also put his stamp on another landmark law by creating the Indiana Uniform Consumer Credit Code. He soon returned to practice, and colleagues say his tireless work ethic and professionalism built a fine reputation for Rubin & Levin P.C.

A wry wit helped, too.

“George’s attention to detail was a learning experience for me,” partner John Hoard recalled of coming to the firm more than 20 years ago, already 12 years into his career.

“What he’s trying to say is, I was a nitpicker,” Rubin quipped, soliciting a quick round of laughs from partners who’ve been with him longest. They talked this month about his influence, which co-founder Elliot Levin said is evidenced by the firm’s national reputation in such representations as commercial collections, creditors’ rights, transactions and corporate bankruptcy.

Levin recalled Rubin carrying home a suitcase full of work after busy days at the office. “He did this because he wanted to know what was going on in each case,” Levin said.

‘Like family’

Christine Hayes Hickey has been Rubin & Levin’s managing partner for about a year, and she said Rubin has been a guide since before she entered the profession. She arrived at the firm straight out of college 25 years ago, then a paralegal studying for her J.D.

Few law school grads today will have such a mentor, she said. Rubin always was willing to help, from drafting letters to talking over the particulars of cases and strategies for negotiating, she said. “Sometimes they were small lessons, but they were life lessons.”

The firm has grown to its present staff of 21 lawyers guided by Rubin’s principles. “A firm this size, we all know and trust each other,” Hickey said. “It’s a little bit like family.”

That’s what an alumna of the firm also says. When partners Rubin and Levin left the old Bamberger & Feibleman firm in 1977 to hang their own shingle, their trusted paralegal Debbie Davis followed. She, too, began law school the next year.

rubinlevin03-15col.jpg Rubin & Levin managing partner Christine Hayes Hickey said Rubin’s example created a family-like atmosphere at the firm. (IL Photo/Aaron P. Bernstein)

“I had them hire this wonderful lawyer from Bamberger & Feibleman who ended up being my husband,” she said, laughing at the recollection. That lawyer was Neil Shook, who worked at the firm until the early 2000s, when the effects of a terminal illness, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, made it impossible to continue.

Davis – now Debbie Shook – remembered the support she received from Rubin and the firm when she took leave to care for Neil, who died in 2003. “They were wonderful, and they loved Neil,” she said. “We were kind of like family. George was like family.”

The firm welcomed Shook back on her schedule after her husband’s passing, and she stayed there until she took a position she still holds as a magistrate in the Marion Superior courts.

Talking about her friend and mentor, Shook recalled Rubin’s encouragement when she pursued law school. It didn’t matter that the law firm was just getting started and it was only Rubin, Levin and her.

“He knew I wanted to do it,” Shook said. “He actually paid a semester of my tuition. … He does have a heart of gold.

“I care very much for George and his wife, Jan, and I have the utmost respect for him. He was my mentor.”

Hoard said he was struck by Rubin’s and Levin’s commitment to family first. The partners strive to accommodate the family life of employees with flexible scheduling, for instance. “That resonates deeply with me,” he said.

Moving to Mass Ave.

When Rubin & Levin moved to its present location in the Marrott Center in 1985, Massachusetts Avenue in Indianapolis wasn’t the hotspot it has become. Rubin concedes it was a little dangerous. Levin remembers having gone to the same building years earlier for his Army induction physical.

But the partners saw something in the location and were able to purchase the five-story building from then-Judge Andy Jacobs Sr., Rubin recalled, well before the first trendy nightclub opened on the downtown strip.

But moving in wasn’t a cinch. The building had to be gutted, and the ground floor housed a retailer called Kelley’s Bargain Store, whose owner “had been there so many years he thought it was his,” Rubin said. But in time, the building was renovated, one of the first redevelopments on the avenue.

Just as the firm was ahead of the curve on selecting a Mass Ave. location, Hoard said the partners also were early adopters of technology. But there were some technological concessions Rubin wasn’t willing to make.

“In this firm, we don’t screen our calls,” Levin said. That’s in keeping with Rubin’s willingness to talk to anyone who dials, and an insistence that lawyers know the details of their clients’ cases well enough to be able to talk with them whenever they call.

Lawyers who trained under Rubin say he set the bar high. Christopher Baker, now a member at Tucker Hester Baker Krebs LLC, worked at Rubin & Levin from 1982 to 2004.

rubinlevin05-15col.jpg Rubin & Levin co-founder Elliott Levin said Rubin fought for principles he believed in, even when it put him at odds with political allies. (IL Photo/Aaron P. Bernstein)

“I watched them grow for a number of years and develop a very good and successful creditors’ rights practice,” Baker said. “That in large part is due to George’s leadership and the way that he thought the practice of law should be accomplished – do it right, put out a good product and zealously represent your client.”

Baker said younger attorneys may not realize Rubin’s influence not just on the profession, but as a drafter of the Uniform Consumer Credit Code. “Seeing George leave the practice of law will clearly make the creditors’ rights bar a little different now. … I think the practice is better in Indianapolis because George was part of it and George helped develop it.”

Levin noted that Rubin also took the forefront even on some difficult issues. He noted, for instance, that Rubin opposed 1970s state laws criminalizing education about abortion rights, a stance that put him at odds with some of his fellow Republicans.

“He feels very principled about a matter and will fight for that principle,” Levin said.

Rubin said his plans for retirement don’t differ from what he did during his working life. He’ll still take daily walks at Eagle Creek Park and still travel with his wife.

Hickey said Rubin will still be setting an example for the firm, just like he’s done for so many lawyers.

“When something leaves our door, we want it to be right,” Hickey said.•

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
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I have been on this program while on parole from 2011-2013. No person should be forced mentally to share private details of their personal life with total strangers. Also giving permission for a mental therapist to report to your parole agent that your not participating in group therapy because you don't have the financial mean to be in the group therapy. I was personally singled out and sent back three times for not having money and also sent back within the six month when you aren't to be sent according to state law. I will work to het this INSOMM's removed from this state. I also had twelve or thirteen parole agents with a fifteen month period. Thanks for your time.

  2. Our nation produces very few jurists of the caliber of Justice DOUGLAS and his peers these days. Here is that great civil libertarian, who recognized government as both a blessing and, when corrupted by ideological interests, a curse: "Once the investigator has only the conscience of government as a guide, the conscience can become ‘ravenous,’ as Cromwell, bent on destroying Thomas More, said in Bolt, A Man For All Seasons (1960), p. 120. The First Amendment mirrors many episodes where men, harried and harassed by government, sought refuge in their conscience, as these lines of Thomas More show: ‘MORE: And when we stand before God, and you are sent to Paradise for doing according to your conscience, *575 and I am damned for not doing according to mine, will you come with me, for fellowship? ‘CRANMER: So those of us whose names are there are damned, Sir Thomas? ‘MORE: I don't know, Your Grace. I have no window to look into another man's conscience. I condemn no one. ‘CRANMER: Then the matter is capable of question? ‘MORE: Certainly. ‘CRANMER: But that you owe obedience to your King is not capable of question. So weigh a doubt against a certainty—and sign. ‘MORE: Some men think the Earth is round, others think it flat; it is a matter capable of question. But if it is flat, will the King's command make it round? And if it is round, will the King's command flatten it? No, I will not sign.’ Id., pp. 132—133. DOUGLAS THEN WROTE: Where government is the Big Brother,11 privacy gives way to surveillance. **909 But our commitment is otherwise. *576 By the First Amendment we have staked our security on freedom to promote a multiplicity of ideas, to associate at will with kindred spirits, and to defy governmental intrusion into these precincts" Gibson v. Florida Legislative Investigation Comm., 372 U.S. 539, 574-76, 83 S. Ct. 889, 908-09, 9 L. Ed. 2d 929 (1963) Mr. Justice DOUGLAS, concurring. I write: Happy Memorial Day to all -- God please bless our fallen who lived and died to preserve constitutional governance in our wonderful series of Republics. And God open the eyes of those government officials who denounce the constitutions of these Republics by arbitrary actions arising out capricious motives.

  3. From back in the day before secularism got a stranglehold on Hoosier jurists comes this great excerpt via Indiana federal court judge Allan Sharp, dedicated to those many Indiana government attorneys (with whom I have dealt) who count the law as a mere tool, an optional tool that is not to be used when political correctness compels a more acceptable result than merely following the path that the law directs: ALLEN SHARP, District Judge. I. In a scene following a visit by Henry VIII to the home of Sir Thomas More, playwriter Robert Bolt puts the following words into the mouths of his characters: Margaret: Father, that man's bad. MORE: There is no law against that. ROPER: There is! God's law! MORE: Then God can arrest him. ROPER: Sophistication upon sophistication! MORE: No, sheer simplicity. The law, Roper, the law. I know what's legal not what's right. And I'll stick to what's legal. ROPER: Then you set man's law above God's! MORE: No, far below; but let me draw your attention to a fact I'm not God. The currents and eddies of right and wrong, which you find such plain sailing, I can't navigate. I'm no voyager. But in the thickets of law, oh, there I'm a forester. I doubt if there's a man alive who could follow me there, thank God... ALICE: (Exasperated, pointing after Rich) While you talk, he's gone! MORE: And go he should, if he was the Devil himself, until he broke the law! ROPER: So now you'd give the Devil benefit of law! MORE: Yes. What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil? ROPER: I'd cut down every law in England to do that! MORE: (Roused and excited) Oh? (Advances on Roper) And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned round on you where would you hide, Roper, the laws being flat? (He leaves *1257 him) This country's planted thick with laws from coast to coast man's laws, not God's and if you cut them down and you're just the man to do it d'you really think you would stand upright in the winds that would blow then? (Quietly) Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake. ROPER: I have long suspected this; this is the golden calf; the law's your god. MORE: (Wearily) Oh, Roper, you're a fool, God's my god... (Rather bitterly) But I find him rather too (Very bitterly) subtle... I don't know where he is nor what he wants. ROPER: My God wants service, to the end and unremitting; nothing else! MORE: (Dryly) Are you sure that's God! He sounds like Moloch. But indeed it may be God And whoever hunts for me, Roper, God or Devil, will find me hiding in the thickets of the law! And I'll hide my daughter with me! Not hoist her up the mainmast of your seagoing principles! They put about too nimbly! (Exit More. They all look after him). Pgs. 65-67, A MAN FOR ALL SEASONS A Play in Two Acts, Robert Bolt, Random House, New York, 1960. Linley E. Pearson, Atty. Gen. of Indiana, Indianapolis, for defendants. Childs v. Duckworth, 509 F. Supp. 1254, 1256 (N.D. Ind. 1981) aff'd, 705 F.2d 915 (7th Cir. 1983)

  4. "Meanwhile small- and mid-size firms are getting squeezed and likely will not survive unless they become a boutique firm." I've been a business attorney in small, and now mid-size firm for over 30 years, and for over 30 years legal consultants have been preaching this exact same mantra of impending doom for small and mid-sized firms -- verbatim. This claim apparently helps them gin up merger opportunities from smaller firms who become convinced that they need to become larger overnight. The claim that large corporations are interested in cost-saving and efficiency has likewise been preached for decades, and is likewise bunk. If large corporations had any real interest in saving money they wouldn't use large law firms whose rates are substantially higher than those of high-quality mid-sized firms.

  5. The family is the foundation of all human government. That is the Grand Design. Modern governments throw off this Design and make bureaucratic war against the family, as does Hollywood and cultural elitists such as third wave feminists. Since WWII we have been on a ship of fools that way, with both the elite and government and their social engineering hacks relentlessly attacking the very foundation of social order. And their success? See it in the streets of Fergusson, on the food stamp doles (mostly broken families)and in the above article. Reject the Grand Design for true social function, enter the Glorious State to manage social dysfunction. Our Brave New World will be a prison camp, and we will welcome it as the only way to manage given the anarchy without it.

ADVERTISEMENT