Layoffs

Attorneys coping with more domestic violence cases

January 2, 2013
Marilyn Odendahl
Domestic violence has been increasing in recent years along with what family law attorneys are observing as more anger and more meanness.
More

Funding less for legal aid offices

December 21, 2011
Jenny Montgomery
The groups will tap reserves in 2012 as their budgets decrease.
More

Indiana Legal Services weathers budget cuts

June 22, 2011
Jenny Montgomery
The ILS board has taken cost-cutting steps, which include not renewing staff contracts.
More

Indiana pro bono districts take a hit

December 22, 2010
Rebecca Berfanger
While low interest rates can be a good thing for those looking to take out loans to buy a home, a car, or to refinance, they mean nothing but headaches and heartaches for organizations that depend on the dollars generated, such as legal aid organizations that rely on funds from Interest on Lawyer Trust Accounts.
More

Economy adjusts child support

April 28, 2010
Rebecca Berfanger
It used to be fairly easy to prove someone wouldn't pay child support because they didn't want to. But it hasn't gone unnoticed that there are more people who want to pay child support but simply can't.
More

ISBA offers job-search seminar

September 9, 2009
Jennifer Nelson
he Indiana State Bar Association is offering a free job-search seminar to help unemployed members find legal jobs.
More

Baker & Daniels cuts more administrative staff

April 17, 2009
Elizabeth Brockett
Baker & Daniels, one of the largest Indiana-based law firms, has cut nine staff positions and implemented a wage freeze for operational staff.
More

Bose McKinney lays off 10 attorneys

March 26, 2009
IL Staff
Bose McKinney & Evans in Indianapolis has announced it's cutting 10 attorneys, two paralegals, and 13 staff positions.
More

Bose McKinney cuts lawyers, paralegals

March 26, 2009
Elizabeth Brockett
The fifth largest Indianapolis law firm is laying off 10 attorneys, two paralegals, and 13 support staff because of the tumultuous economy.
More

Firm cuts 2 percent of workforce

January 19, 2009
Michael Hoskins
Indianapolis law firm Ice Miller is cutting about 2 percent of its total workforce, a reduction that doesn't include any attorneys and that the firm denies is a result of the current economic climate.
More

Indianapolis law firm cutting support staff

January 12, 2009
Michael Hoskins
Indianapolis law firm Bose McKinney & Evans has slashed 11 support jobs, reducing its administrative and operational staff by almost 8 percent.
More

Baker & Daniels cuts operational staff

December 12, 2008
Michael Hoskins
Tough economic times are causing law firms across the country to consider staff cuts as a way to trim costs, and the Indiana legal market isn't an exception.
More
Sponsored by
2015 Distinguished Barrister &
Up and Coming Lawyer Reception

Tuesday, May 5, 2015 • 4:30 - 7:00 pm
Learn More


ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. The $320,000 is the amount the school spent in litigating two lawsuits: One to release the report involving John Trimble (as noted in the story above) and one defending the discrimination lawsuit. The story above does not mention the amount spent to defend the discrimination suit, that's why the numbers don't match. Thanks for reading.

  2. $160k? Yesterday the figure was $320k. Which is it Indiana Lawyer. And even more interesting, which well connected law firm got the (I am guessing) $320k, six time was the fired chancellor received. LOL. (From yesterday's story, which I guess we were expected to forget overnight ... "According to records obtained by the Journal & Courier, Purdue spent $161,812, beginning in July 2012, in a state open records lawsuit and $168,312, beginning in April 2013, for defense in a federal lawsuit. Much of those fees were spent battling court orders to release an independent investigation by attorney John Trimble that found Purdue could have handled the forced retirement better")

  3. The numbers are harsh; 66 - 24 in the House, 40 - 10 in the Senate. And it is an idea pushed by the Democrats. Dead end? Ummm not necessarily. Just need to go big rather than go home. Nuclear option. Give it to the federal courts, the federal courts will ram this down our throats. Like that other invented right of the modern age, feticide. Rights too precious to be held up by 2000 years of civilization hang in the balance. Onward!

  4. I'm currently seeing someone who has a charge of child pornography possession, he didn't know he had it because it was attached to a music video file he downloaded when he was 19/20 yrs old and fought it for years until he couldn't handle it and plead guilty of possession. He's been convicted in Illinois and now lives in Indiana. Wouldn't it be better to give them a chance to prove to the community and their families that they pose no threat? He's so young and now because he was being a kid and downloaded music at a younger age, he has to pay for it the rest of his life? It's unfair, he can't live a normal life, and has to live in fear of what people can say and do to him because of something that happened 10 years ago? No one deserves that, and no one deserves to be labeled for one mistake, he got labeled even though there was no intent to obtain and use the said content. It makes me so sad to see someone I love go through this and it makes me holds me back a lot because I don't know how people around me will accept him...second chances should be given to those under the age of 21 at least so they can be given a chance to live a normal life as a productive member of society.

  5. It's just an ill considered remark. The Sup Ct is inherently political, as it is a core part of government, and Marbury V Madison guaranteed that it would become ever more so Supremely thus. So her remark is meaningless and she just should have not made it.... what she could have said is that Congress is a bunch of lazys and cowards who wont do their jobs so the hard work of making laws clear, oftentimes stops with the Sups sorting things out that could have been resolved by more competent legislation. That would have been a more worthwhile remark and maybe would have had some relevance to what voters do, since voters cant affect who gets appointed to the supremely un-democratic art III courts.

ADVERTISEMENT