ILNews

Lawyer lands on feet

February 4, 2009
Keywords
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
Economic Impact

 

Indiana attorney John Conlon lost his job late last year, but he hasn’t given up.

The 62-year-old who’s been practicing for three decades has instead put a retirement plan into action a little earlier than expected by launching his own legal consulting business. He’s tapping into not only his decades of experience but also many years in the legal ethics arena by turning what could have been a career-ender into a new opportunity.

“I’d been thinking about something to do when that time came, something to occupy my mind when the time came,” the 1974 graduate of Indiana University School of Law - Indianapolis said. “When the opportunity came up, I saw this as a time to move up my timetable and put this into action.”

His story illustrates how the legal community is coping with the rising level of joblessness, whether it’s a result of the economic downturn, a voluntary choice to leave for greener pastures, or a result of a law firm merger or acquisition. His is a story about finding a new place to practice.

For Conlon, his change in careers came as a post-acquisition causality between Seattle-based Safeco Insurance and Boston-based Liberty Mutual Insurance, which announced a union in early 2008 and finalized that marriage in September 2008. He’d worked as a regional manager for Safeco and had been with the company since the days it was known as American States Financial Corp. - he’d survived a 1997 merger that resulted in Safeco.

As a litigation-management executive, Conlon’s responsibilities included managing a legal budget of $100 million, developing and putting into place legal cost-control strategies such as in-house fee bill reviews, and supervising staff that worked with more than 400 outside law firms throughout the country.

But when the latest merger occurred, Conlon didn’t survive the cuts. Within a month of the union that would lead to Safeco’s name being dropped, Conlon learned his time with the company was coming to a close. His last day at the Indianapolis insurance company office was the day before Thanksgiving, and he’s now considered officially “retired” despite it being a forced layoff.

“We all saw this coming, but it was just a business decision,” he said. “You had attrition throughout the year, some leaving because of the uncertainty, but the shoe finally fell in the fall.”

Nearing retirement age but not quite there and definitely not ready for that life-changing move, Conlon looked to his longtime interest in legal ethics to pave the way for the next phase of his career.

Jon ConlinConlon is a former chair of the Indiana State Bar Association’s Committee on Legal Ethics, holding that position for three years and speaking at many seminars and writing articles through the years. His resume also boasts about his co-founding the American Bar Association’s General Committee on Insurance Staff Counsel.

That experience and the potential it gave him for his own business came in October, when Conlon attended a corporate counsel conference in Seattle. There, the Association of Corporate Counsel pointed out that company chief financial officers are putting pressure on corporate counsel to cut legal staffs.

“It kind of struck me then that there’s a need for legal billing consultants focusing on the ethics,” Conlon said. “Everything a lawyer does in legal billing is based on ethics of the profession. They always want to help solve a problem, and mostly you get inadvertent legal billing mistakes that can be costly.”

That led to his creation of Legal Points, the consulting business he’s launched from his Westfield home. The specialty will be on legal cost control, particularly in legal billing as it relates to attorney ethics.

He’s spent time manning the ISBA’s ethics hotline fielding those types of questions specifically.

Conlon took the holiday season off to relax and develop a Web site at http:// legalpoints.web.officelive.com/, as well as get some of the basics of his consulting business organized. He brought in some colleagues to bounce ideas off of, including some recently laid off attorneys doing temporary work while searching for a steady position. 

Now he’s on the hunt for potential clients he can help - insurance companies to start with, possibly law firms and corporations at some point in the future. Conlon wants to offer a training session, from a couple hours to a two-day seminar for larger groups. That might involve going to an office to talk about states’ ethical rules, history, caselaw, and modern pressures of legal billing, as well as showing legal departments how they can best develop their own review program.

A session might point to how corporate counsel can spot red flags in e-billing, such as having more than one lawyer or a higher rate than specified, Conlon said. It might also involve discussions about recycled work product - how briefs used from another case can’t be billed to that client or another if being used again.

He pointed out that an in-house fee bill review is a more economical choice than outside legal bill auditing, which handles all the work but can cost more and doesn’t solve the problem in the end.

“We’re talking millions that are spent in legal billing at some corporations,” he said.“If you show a company that they could save 5 percent of their $40 million legal budget â?¦ that’s adding $2 million to their bottom line.”

The current economic climate could be both a blessing and a curse for his business venture, Conlon admitted. A recent survey of law firms found that 98 percent are planning on increasing their legal fees in 2009, and with some support and legal staff being trimmed, those who remain have to pick up the slack - which could lead to more fee disputes between clients and those doing the legal work.

“I want to give them the confidence to handle these issues themselves,”Conlon said. “At the end of the day, they’re responsible for their own ethical decisions.”

It’s a need that isn’t currently being met, according to Don Lundberg, executive secretary of the Indiana Disciplinary Commission. Legal-fee complaints amount to about 5.5 percent of cases opened for investigation, which doesn’t include any screened out because a dispute may not rise to the disciplinary level.

“Fee issues are not off the radar screen, and Rule 1.5 deals directly with attorney fees and says in substance they must be reasonable,” he said. “We struggle with that line between when a fee dispute might be unreasonableness. John, with his background, is a very sophisticated consumer of legal services and knows that every dollar they pay (in legal billing) is a dollar less that stays in the business. So it seems like he’d have a strong business here in trying to find that right balance.”

While confident in the need for this type of consulting business, Conlon said he remains nervous about the start and what may be down the road - particularly in this economic climate where companies and firms are cutting back.

“There’s always a bit of uncertainty when you open a new business, but you just have to take it one day at a time,” he said. “You can’t give up.”
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. 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.

  2. 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.

  3. 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)

  4. "Meanwhile small- and mid-size firms are getting squeezed and likely will not survive unless they become a boutique firm." I've been a business attorney in small, and now mid-size firm for over 30 years, and for over 30 years legal consultants have been preaching this exact same mantra of impending doom for small and mid-sized firms -- verbatim. This claim apparently helps them gin up merger opportunities from smaller firms who become convinced that they need to become larger overnight. The claim that large corporations are interested in cost-saving and efficiency has likewise been preached for decades, and is likewise bunk. If large corporations had any real interest in saving money they wouldn't use large law firms whose rates are substantially higher than those of high-quality mid-sized firms.

  5. The family is the foundation of all human government. That is the Grand Design. Modern governments throw off this Design and make bureaucratic war against the family, as does Hollywood and cultural elitists such as third wave feminists. Since WWII we have been on a ship of fools that way, with both the elite and government and their social engineering hacks relentlessly attacking the very foundation of social order. And their success? See it in the streets of Fergusson, on the food stamp doles (mostly broken families)and in the above article. Reject the Grand Design for true social function, enter the Glorious State to manage social dysfunction. Our Brave New World will be a prison camp, and we will welcome it as the only way to manage given the anarchy without it.

ADVERTISEMENT