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. Falk said “At this point, at this minute, we’ll savor this particular victory.” “It certainly is a historic week on this front,” Cockrum said. “What a delight ... “Happy Independence Day to the women of the state of Indiana,” WOW. So we broke with England for the right to "off" our preborn progeny at will, and allow the processing plant doing the dirty deeds (dirt cheap) to profit on the marketing of those "products of conception." I was completely maleducated on our nation's founding, it would seem. (But I know the ACLU is hard at work to remedy that, too.)

  2. congratulations on such balanced journalism; I also love how fetus disposal affects women's health protection, as covered by Roe...

  3. It truly sickens me every time a case is compared to mine. The Indiana Supreme Court upheld my convictions based on a finding of “hidden threats.” The term “hidden threat” never appeared until the opinion in Brewington so I had no way of knowing I was on trial for making hidden threats because Dearborn County Prosecutor F Aaron Negangard argued the First Amendment didn't protect lies. Negangard convened a grand jury to investigate me for making “over the top” and “unsubstantiated” statements about court officials, not hidden threats of violence. My indictments and convictions were so vague, the Indiana Court of Appeals made no mention of hidden threats when they upheld my convictions. Despite my public defender’s closing arguments stating he was unsure of exactly what conduct the prosecution deemed to be unlawful, Rush found that my lawyer’s trial strategy waived my right to the fundamental error of being tried for criminal defamation because my lawyer employed a strategy that attempted to take advantage of Negangard's unconstitutional criminal defamation prosecution against me. Rush’s opinion stated the prosecution argued two grounds for conviction one constitutional and one not, however the constitutional true threat “argument” consistently of only a blanket reading of subsection 1 of the intimidation statute during closing arguments, making it impossible to build any kind of defense. Of course intent was impossible for my attorney to argue because my attorney, Rush County Chief Public Defender Bryan Barrett refused to meet with me prior to trial. The record is littered with examples of where I made my concerns known to the trial judge that I didn’t know the charges against me, I did not have access to evidence, all while my public defender refused to meet with me. Special Judge Brian Hill, from Rush Superior Court, refused to address the issue with my public defender and marched me to trial without access to evidence or an understanding of the indictments against me. Just recently the Indiana Public Access Counselor found that four over four years Judge Hill has erroneously denied access to the grand jury audio from my case, the most likely reason being the transcription of the grand jury proceedings omitted portions of the official audio record. The bottom line is any intimidation case involves an action or statement that is debatably a threat of physical violence. There were no such statements in my case. The Indiana Supreme Court took partial statements I made over a period of 41 months and literally connected them with dots… to give the appearance that the statements were made within the same timeframe and then claimed a person similarly situated would find the statements intimidating while intentionally leaving out surrounding contextual factors. Even holding the similarly situated test was to be used in my case, the prosecution argued that the only intent of my public writings was to subject the “victims” to ridicule and hatred so a similarly situated jury instruction wouldn't even have applied in my case. Chief Justice Rush wrote the opinion while Rush continued to sit on a committee with one of the alleged victims in my trial and one of the judges in my divorce, just as she'd done for the previous 7+ years. All of this information, including the recent PAC opinion against the Dearborn Superior Court II can be found on my blog www.danbrewington.blogspot.com.

  4. On a related note, I offered the ICLU my cases against the BLE repeatedly, and sought their amici aid repeatedly as well. Crickets. Usually not even a response. I am guessing they do not do allegations of anti-Christian bias? No matter how glaring? I have posted on other links the amicus brief that did get filed (search this ezine, e.g., Kansas attorney), read the Thomas More Society brief to note what the ACLU ran from like vampires from garlic. An Examiner pledged to advance diversity and inclusion came right out on the record and demanded that I choose Man's law or God's law. I wonder, had I been asked to swear off Allah ... what result then, ICLU? Had I been found of bad character and fitness for advocating sexual deviance, what result then ICLU? Had I been lifetime banned for posting left of center statements denigrating the US Constitution, what result ICLU? Hey, we all know don't we? Rather Biased.

  5. It was mentioned in the article that there have been numerous CLE events to train attorneys on e-filing. I would like someone to provide a list of those events, because I have not seen any such events in east central Indiana, and since Hamilton County is one of the counties where e-filing is mandatory, one would expect some instruction in this area. Come on, people, give some instruction, not just applause!

ADVERTISEMENT