ILNews

Indianapolis law firm Stewart & Irwin closing

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

An Indianapolis law firm with a broad range of representation and diverse clientele plans to close its doors after more than 90 years.

Stewart & Irwin P.C. has notified current staff and former firm members that the firm will close in the coming weeks, according to an email provided to Indiana Lawyer. The email indicated that S&I is planning a private event for those associated with the firm.

President Mary Schmid and other firm executives did not reply to numerous telephone messages and emails seeking comment. Several attorneys familiar with the situation who spoke on condition of anonymity said several S&I shareholders have landed with other Indianapolis firms.

Stewart & Irwin is “essentially dissolving and the partners are scattering various places,” said an attorney who asked not to be identified. “Associates are jumping ship,” said another attorney who likewise did not wish to be named.

According to the firm’s website, Stewart & Irwin was founded in 1921 and represents a wide range of private-sector and government clients. The firm listed practice areas including automotive retail, corporate, general business, environmental, governmental affairs and regulation, insurance defense and coverage, medical malpractice defense, personal services, real estate, communications and utilities, estate and succession planning, employment and labor, intellectual property and technology, and construction and development.

Stewart & Irwin has downsized by almost one-third in the past five years. The firm lists on its website 24 lawyers, including 13 shareholders or equity shareholders, five associates and six attorneys listed either as of counsel or retired. In the 2008 Indiana Legal Directory, S&I listed 34 lawyers – 21 shareholders or equity shareholders, seven associates and six of counsel.  





 

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. Major social engineering imposed by judicial order well in advance of democratic change, has been the story of the whole post ww2 period. Contraception, desegregation, abortion, gay marriage: all rammed down the throats of Americans who didn't vote to change existing laws on any such thing, by the unelected lifetime tenure Supreme court heirarchs. Maybe people came to accept those things once imposed upon them, but, that's accommodation not acceptance; and surely not democracy. So let's quit lying to the kids telling them this is a democracy. Some sort of oligarchy, but no democracy that's for sure, and it never was. A bourgeois republic from day one.

  2. JD Massur, yes, brings to mind a similar stand at a Texas Mission in 1836. Or Vladivostok in 1918. As you seemingly gloat, to the victors go the spoils ... let the looting begin, right?

  3. I always wondered why high fence deer hunting was frowned upon? I guess you need to keep the population steady. If you don't, no one can enjoy hunting! Thanks for the post! Fence

  4. Whether you support "gay marriage" or not is not the issue. The issue is whether the SCOTUS can extract from an unmentionable somewhere the notion that the Constitution forbids government "interference" in the "right" to marry. Just imagine time-traveling to Philadelphia in 1787. Ask James Madison if the document he and his fellows just wrote allowed him- or forbade government to "interfere" with- his "right" to marry George Washington? He would have immediately- and justly- summoned the Sergeant-at-Arms to throw your sorry self out into the street. Far from being a day of liberation, this is a day of capitulation by the Rule of Law to the Rule of What's Happening Now.

  5. With today's ruling, AG Zoeller's arguments in the cases of Obamacare and Same-sex Marriage can be relegated to the ash heap of history. 0-fer

ADVERTISEMENT