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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Such things are no more elections than those in the late, unlamented Soviet Union.

  2. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  3. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  4. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  5. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

ADVERTISEMENT