ILNews

Law firm evolution hints how Evan Bayh could follow in his father's footsteps - again

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

It all began with three prominent attorneys 30 years ago.

But what started in late 1980 remains relevant today and raises an interesting hypothetical about what could happen again. An Indianapolis law firm created three decades ago is now dissolving, and a look back at how it first came to life offers possibilities for what could be ahead for the Indiana legal community and outgoing U.S. Sen. Evan Bayh.

As he leaves office and takes a nostalgic look back at the local law firm he once worked at briefly, the departing senator’s situation in some ways mirrors how his own father left office in December 1980 and came back to Indiana to make a bipartisan-style move and create a law firm that remained intact for three decades.

Which begs the question: Could it happen again, the son following in the father’s footsteps?

No one, including the outgoing senator, knows the answer. But it’s intriguing how similar his situation is to what came at his dad, former Sen. Birch Bayh, exactly 30 years ago and how that all seems to be intersecting now at the heart of the Hoosier legal community.

Blast from the Bayh past

After Birch Bayh lost his re-election bid to Dan Quayle in November 1980, he returned to Indiana, dusted off his shingle, and began mapping out a plan to finally pursue a long-delayed dream of starting his own law firm.

“I’d planned at one point to start a firm across from the courthouse in Terre Haute and be a trial lawyer. But something got in the way of that, so here I was many years later and finally going after that dream,” the 82-year old Bayh says now. “First thing I had to do was find lawyers I knew and could trust, and give credibility to what we were doing.”
 

tabbert Tabbert

The outgoing Democratic senator immediately tapped Don. A. Tabbert, a trusted friend and well-respected attorney who had also served decades earlier as the Republican-appointed U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Indiana.

They talked and before long Bayh contacted a law school buddy of his, James B. Capehart, about joining with them in this new firm venture. The idea was to form a firm that would focus on public affairs and have offices in both Indianapolis and Washington D.C.

A fellow Democrat, Capehart also happened to have family ties to the Capeharts associated with the firm Krieg Devault Alexander & Capehart and the former senator who Birch Bayh had defeated for the Senate seat in 1962.

What they created was the firm of Bayh Tabbert & Capehart, which would go on to become a fixture in the legal community with deep business and political roots. Their clientele included Donald Trump, Bayer Corp., Clarian Health Partners, the city of Indianapolis and various health, insurance, and gaming industry clients.

The firm began disbanding in the mid-80s once Birch Bayh remarried and began spending less time in Indianapolis, the trio says.

“Circumstances just developed and the synergies we’d hoped could continue between Indianapolis and Washington just weren’t there,” Bayh said. “So, we changed our relationship and they went on without me.”

Capehart described the disbanding as a friendly parting without any animosity, and though he stayed a few years after Birch Bayh left he later stopped practicing full time and hasn’t gone back to practicing law.

The 75-year old Capehart said, “Really, this is what happens to law firms, naturally. They change.”

Firm evolution

Tabbert stayed to hold the firm together, bringing in a slew of prominent attorneys through the years. Before the elder Bayh left, he was able to practice with some of those attorneys that included his son, a young Evan Bayh, who was a University of Virginia School of Law graduate and worked at the firm in 1984 and 1985. That was before Evan Bayh’s entrance into state politics as Indiana secretary of state and governor and eventually taking the U.S. Senate seat his father had once held.

After 12 years, Evan Bayh is leaving the Senate. He has said his decision is due to widening partisan conflicts that make it nearly impossible to address the country’s business. Turning 55 on Dec. 26, the son is two years older than his father was at the time of leaving the Senate and forming Bayh Tabbert & Capehart.

So far, Evan Bayh has not revealed his professional plans or whether he might return to the Indianapolis legal community. While he has an inactive license and resides mostly in Washington, D.C., Bayh has said publicly he plans at some point to return to this state. He points to family reasons as why he doesn’t plan to run for governor in 2012, and he says he doesn’t plan to become a lobbyist.

One door closes, another opens

Whatever path Evan Bayh chooses, it most likely won’t involve the firm his father helped start and later evolved into the now-dissolving Tabbert Hahn Earnest & Weddle. Partners at the mid-sized firm announced Dec. 4 that four associates and five partners, including named partners Greg Hahn and Bob Weddle, are joining Bose McKinney & Evans at the start of 2011. The remaining four lawyers, as well as co-founder Tabbert, who now serves as of counsel, are going off on their own.

Working at the firm Veneble in Washington, D.C., Birch Bayh says he heard the news of the Indianapolis firm’s dissolution and immediately contacted Tabbert, who he’s tried to keep in touch with through the years.

“A large part of my heart has always stayed there in Indiana, but Don was and still is the pillar of strength for the firm standing through the years,” he said.

Tabbert said the firm decisions happened fast and some didn’t want to move to the city’s fifth largest firm, but once it became clear that the change would happen he had to start thinking about what his next move would be.

“I didn’t have a lot of time to decide this once I saw my firm was going to dissolve, and so I was looking to find a place because I’m full-time busy,” the 82-year old attorney said.

Tabbert says he has since made plans to become a solo practitioner. He is going to share office space on the north side of Indianapolis with a former partner at his firm, Mark K. Sullivan. The two won’t be working as partners or in an actual law firm, but instead will be sharing office space in a loose association as some lawyers do throughout the state. One paralegal from his current firm will be joining him at the new office, Tabbert said.

“I’m proud of how this firm has grown up in the past 30 years and had some offshoots, but I’m looking forward to what’s next,” he said. “What’s important is that the surroundings don’t interfere with your practice. A solo practice doesn’t bother me one bit, because when you’re practicing, you’re doing just that – practicing law.”•

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. Applause, applause, applause ..... but, is this duty to serve the constitutional order not much more incumbent upon the State, whose only aim is to be pure and unadulterated justice, than defense counsel, who is also charged with gaining a result for a client? I agree both are responsible, but it seems to me that the government attorneys bear a burden much heavier than defense counsel .... "“I note, much as we did in Mechling v. State, 16 N.E.3d 1015 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014), trans. denied, that the attorneys representing the State and the defendant are both officers of the court and have a responsibility to correct any obvious errors at the time they are committed."

  2. Do I have to hire an attorney to get co-guardianship of my brother? My father has guardianship and my older sister was his co-guardian until this Dec 2014 when she passed and my father was me to go on as the co-guardian, but funds are limit and we need to get this process taken care of quickly as our fathers health isn't the greatest. So please advise me if there is anyway to do this our self or if it requires a lawyer? Thank you

  3. 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.

  4. 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.

  5. 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)

ADVERTISEMENT