Few TV shows highlight the glamour of being a corporate lawyer, but Josh Claybourn in Evansville sees the appeal and says
he couldn’t have found a better place to utilize his legal skills.
As the in-house attorney for energy and gas company Vectren Corp., the 29-year-old lawyer who’s been practicing for
about four years has found his niche.
Josh Claybourn began as corporate counsel for Fortune 100 company Vectren Corp. last year, staying in his hometown
of Evansville where he had practiced privately after law school. (Photo submitted)
“Hollywood is slow to glamorize the in-house side of practicing law, but it can be every bit as interesting as a law
firm environment that you see TV shows about,” Claybourn said. “This is not where I thought I’d be when
I set out, but as you go on in practice you see there are many in-house aspects that are appealing. … Especially as
more companies are wanting their in-house lawyers to take a broader strategic role.”
The Indiana University School of Law – Indianapolis graduate began practicing in 2006, starting at the Evansville firm
of Rudolph Fine Porter & Johnson. He handled mostly business transactional work and a large amount of health industry
and corporate law, paving a way for the Vectren opportunity.
His former boss, managing partner L. Montgomery Porter, described Claybourn’s departure as a great loss for the firm
but the new post seemed like a natural fit for the young attorney. Claybourn was really the first attorney from the firm to
move directly into the corporate counsel role, even though another lawyer had previously left the state and returned to that
corporate arena of law, Porter said.
But Porter noted that Claybourn is an Evansville native and very involved in the local community, and so staying in the area
was very important to him.
“He’s a proponent of, and probably the best kind of example of, keeping the best and brightest in town,”
Porter said. “With his talents, Josh could have gone anywhere else to practice. But he grew up here and that’s
important to him, and he does more than just talk the talk about staying involved.”
Claybourn left the firm in September and started at Vectren, where he is one of seven attorneys working in-house –
a difference from the roughly 20 attorneys who’d been at the firm. He describes the change as a great opportunity, one
that brings greater responsibility and many longer hours.
“With all of that kind of role, you have new challenges and opportunities but there’s a big difference: you have
one huge client,” he said.
Vectren is an Evansville-based Fortune 100 company that has about $4.3 billion in assets and provides gas and electric services
to about 1 million Indiana customers, as well as about 300 more in Western Ohio. However, Claybourn says the company’s
seven in-house attorneys makes it one of the smaller-sized legal departments for a company of that size.
“It’s more team-oriented, rather than having the competition you might see within a law firm,” he said.
“There’s an interesting dynamic that can arise anywhere between a lawyer and client, but this seems more personal
because you’re only focusing on them and not other clients. You get a lot of closure from being there from beginning
to end, and seeing a full solution rather than piecemeal resolutions.”
His job is the only that handles day-to-day legal work for the company, and a large amount is general transactional work,
contract review, negotiations, and business deals, Claybourn said.
An area that he has found new and interesting is the transition into the utility regulatory scheme, overseen by the Indiana
Utility Regulatory Commission and a similar agency in Ohio. He often travels to Indianapolis to handle that side of things,
attending hearings and proceedings before administrative law judges with that state agency.
“This is so much broader, not narrow and grinding,” he said. “It all dovetails together into how there’s
such a great depth of work.”
For example, Claybourn notes the need to contain utility costs with a greater desire for environmental and carbon emission
controls as one area that brings up interesting issues he faces regularly. Keeping rates affordable in this tough economy
versus being able to achieve what the regulations require mean a thorough review of internal company costs and those government
rules, Claybourn said.
“All the regulation puts a bigger responsibility on the in-house attorneys to help manage and navigate those waters,”
he said.
From the corporate perspective, vice president Ron Christian said he couldn’t be happier with Claybourn’s activity
in the past 10 months. He says Claybourn has done an outstanding job, and describers him as a self-starter and excellent communicator
who’s helped keep the legal department strong.
Reflecting on his own time at Vectren so far, Claybourn says he’s touching many more lives with the work that he’s
doing simply because of the amount of people who rely on his work each day. Families and businesses plan their budgets based
on utility rates, and the overall environment might be shaped by how the utility company builds its industry and where those
facilities are located, he said.
“We have a pretty big footprint, mostly in the utility world, and there are a lot of legal challenges you have to balance,”
he said. “Hollywood may not have jumped on the corporate counsel theme, but you never know – maybe we’ll
have our own show about interesting and important this type of job can be.”•














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.