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

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. 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!!!

  2. 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?

  3. 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?

  4. 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.

  5. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

ADVERTISEMENT