Law Firms


Fifth-generation Lawrenceburg attorney joins long line of paternal precedent

November 30, 2016

The original Ewbank lawyers were county-seat attorneys, and the first two generations — John William and James — were abstractors who founded the family businesses in 1882.


Doxly launches new insights, closing books features

November 21, 2016
Legal tech startup Doxly Inc., an attorney-run company aimed at digitizing the process of closing legal transactions, has launched a new suite of software features designed to enhance attorneys’ abilities to track and archive deals.More.

Indy attorney elected to Judicial Nominating/Qualifications commissions

November 21, 2016
An Indianapolis attorney has been elected as the next district two representative of the Indiana Judicial Nominating Commission/Judicial Qualifications Commission.More.

Barnes & Thornburg managing partner named to presidential inaugural committee

November 16, 2016
An Indianapolis attorney with ties to Vice-President elect and Republican Indiana Gov. Mike Pence has been named to the committee for the 58th presidential inauguration.More.

5 practice areas expected to see major growth in 2017

November 16, 2016
In its 2017 Practice Outlook Guide, BTI Consulting Group projected that five practice areas would experience significant growth in the coming year: regulatory matters, mergers and acquisitions, cybersecurity/data privacy, bet-the-company litigation and class-action lawsuits. Here is a look at the reasons top lawyers in these practice areas are predicting steady growth.More.
Sponsored by
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. The origination numbers are in IL's more factually based, viewpoint neutral Oct. 14 article, and show that women partners' pay is 38.1% of their originations. For men, it's only 36.6%. To the extent origination isn't credited fairly, that should be addressed. But overall the split seems equitable, especially considering associates take home something like 20-25% of the revenue from their billable hours. To express a more cynical point: to many, elitist lawyer millionaires debating how unfair things are because, even though the numbers look totally equitable on their face, there might possibly be some latent gender bias that's holding down women law partners' half a million dollar salaries by a few bucks is sickening. This is especially true when people also see lawyers (fairly or not) as the folks that are helping companies ship jobs overseas, ship taxable income overseas through inversions, being smart arses who make it a point to act combative and intimidating (and not just at work), and as totally unaffordable. Sure, perhaps in a bias-free world you could make a little more money and buy a fourth BMW or take yet another trip to Europe. But we should probably forgive those who are unsympathetic to an insistence on rigid notions of income equality among law firm partners.

  2. Bravo to Julie King's reply ... took the words right out of my mouth. I have seen more and more attorneys using the title "Corporate Risk Officer" or Executive Risk Officer" rather than Corporate Counsel. I like the two former titles better than Corporate Counsel. For example,I found that Corporate Risk Officer is less threatening to outside other attorneys, business executives and others I would need to deal with to resolve business or legal related problems or to prevent risks to the corporation which may cause litigation and the need for expensive outside counsel. My duties broadened due to my need to interact with nearly every level personnel to prevent those foreseeable but unassuming risks which result in loss of revenue, impeding business progress, needless turn-over or retraining of personnel, intervention of government in business activity, taint of the company's reputation and wasted outside litigation fees and costs. due to litigation. Had I not had an "open door policy" the daily business and operational information I learned being exposed to all echelons of the business activity and personnel I would not have been able to act with celerity to prevent the risks to the corporation it would have resulted in serious loss revenue, increased the compliance cost and scrutiny to the operations of the business and killed business progress in key areas of the market targeted for expansion.

  3. I have worked in-house at a number of companies and seen both departments that conduct the overwhelming majority of the work in-house and departments that farm out most of the work. My personal opinion is that the former is much smarter. In-house counsel need to be ingrained in the business, watching, listening and answering questions on the fly. I was regularly asked legal questions in the parking lot, the cafeteria and even the restroom. People did that because I would take the time to work with them when and where they needed help. If I sent out the legal work, our business people might not stop what they were doing to run a "sanity check" -- especially if their department had to pick up the tab for the outside legal fees. That's just a practical reality. Additionally, only those on the ground know all the players, the products, the roadmaps, etc. that guide how we'll craft contracts and other legal documents. Sure, outside counsel can learn a lot about their clients. But I submit it's a completely different thing to work side-by-side with them and have a full understanding of the business' legal needs. Finally, companies can save a lot of money doing the work in-house. When I was at Toshiba, we rarely sent anything to outside counsel. The two or three lawyers handled everything internally. And, when I sent litigation outside, I'd hear, "Do you know how many computers I have to sell to pay for that legal bill?" I got to know the answer to that question pretty quickly!!