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. California Sex Offender Management Board (CASOMB) End of Year Report 2014. (page 13) Under the current system many local registering agencies are challenged just keeping up with registration paperwork. It takes an hour or more to process each registrant, the majority of whom are low risk offenders. As a result law enforcement cannot monitor higher risk offenders more intensively in the community due to the sheer numbers on the registry. Some of the consequences of lengthy and unnecessary registration requirements actually destabilize the life’s of registrants and those -such as families- whose lives are often substantially impacted. Such consequences are thought to raise levels of known risk factors while providing no discernible benefit in terms of community safety. The full report is available online at. http://www.casomb.org/index.cfm?pid=231 National Institute of Justice (NIJ) US Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs United States of America. The overall conclusion is that Megan’s law has had no demonstrated effect on sexual offenses in New Jersey, calling into question the justification for start-up and operational costs. Megan’s Law has had no effect on time to first rearrest for known sex offenders and has not reduced sexual reoffending. Neither has it had an impact on the type of sexual reoffense or first-time sexual offense. The study also found that the law had not reduced the number of victims of sexual offenses. The full report is available online at. https://www.ncjrs.gov/app/publications/abstract.aspx? ID=247350 The University of Chicago Press for The Booth School of Business of the University of Chicago and The University of Chicago Law School Article DOI: 10.1086/658483 Conclusion. The data in these three data sets do not strongly support the effectiveness of sex offender registries. The national panel data do not show a significant decrease in the rate of rape or the arrest rate for sexual abuse after implementation of a registry via the Internet. The BJS data that tracked individual sex offenders after their release in 1994 did not show that registration had a significantly negative effect on recidivism. And the D.C. crime data do not show that knowing the location of sex offenders by census block can help protect the locations of sexual abuse. This pattern of noneffectiveness across the data sets does not support the conclusion that sex offender registries are successful in meeting their objectives of increasing public safety and lowering recidivism rates. The full report is available online at. http://www.jstor.org/stable/full/10.1086/658483 These are not isolated conclusions but are the same outcomes in the majority of conclusions and reports on this subject from multiple government agencies and throughout the academic community. People, including the media and other organizations should not rely on and reiterate the statements and opinions of the legislators or other people as to the need for these laws because of the high recidivism rates and the high risk offenders pose to the public which simply is not true and is pure hyperbole and fiction. They should rely on facts and data collected and submitted in reports from the leading authorities and credible experts in the fields such as the following. California Sex Offender Management Board (CASOMB) Sex offender recidivism rate for a new sex offense is 0.8% (page 30) The full report is available online at http://www.cdcr.ca.gov/Adult_Research_Branch/Research_Documents/2014_Outcome_Evaluation_Report_7-6-2015.pdf California Sex Offender Management Board (CASOMB) (page 38) Sex offender recidivism rate for a new sex offense is 1.8% The full report is available online at. http://www.google.com/url?sa= t&source=web&cd=1&ved= 0CCEQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F% 2Fwww.cdcr.ca.gov%2FAdult_ Research_Branch%2FResearch_ documents%2FOutcome_ evaluation_Report_2013.pdf&ei= C9dSVePNF8HfoATX-IBo&usg=AFQjCNE9I6ueHz-o2mZUnuxLPTyiRdjDsQ Bureau of Justice Statistics 5 PERCENT OF SEX OFFENDERS REARRESTED FOR ANOTHER SEX CRIME WITHIN 3 YEARS OF PRISON RELEASE WASHINGTON, D.C. Within 3 years following their 1994 state prison release, 5.3 percent of sex offenders (men who had committed rape or sexual assault) were rearrested for another sex crime, the Justice Department’s Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) announced today. The full report is available online at. http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/press/rsorp94pr.cfm Document title; A Model of Static and Dynamic Sex Offender Risk Assessment Author: Robert J. McGrath, Michael P. Lasher, Georgia F. Cumming Document No.: 236217 Date Received: October 2011 Award Number: 2008-DD-BX-0013 Findings: Study of 759 adult male offenders under community supervision Re-arrest rate: 4.6% after 3-year follow-up The sexual re-offense rates for the 746 released in 2005 are much lower than what many in the public have been led to expect or believe. These low re-offense rates appear to contradict a conventional wisdom that sex offenders have very high sexual re-offense rates. The full report is available online at. https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/236217.pdf Document Title: SEX OFFENDER SENTENCING IN WASHINGTON STATE: RECIDIVISM RATES BY: Washington State Institute For Public Policy. A study of 4,091 sex offenders either released from prison or community supervision form 1994 to 1998 and examined for 5 years Findings: Sex Crime Recidivism Rate: 2.7% Link to Report: http://www.oncefallen.com/files/Washington_SO_Recid_2005.pdf Document Title: Indiana’s Recidivism Rates Decline for Third Consecutive Year BY: Indiana Department of Correction 2009. The recidivism rate for sex offenders returning on a new sex offense was 1.05%, one of the lowest in the nation. In a time when sex offenders continue to face additional post-release requirements that often result in their return to prison for violating technical rules such as registration and residency restrictions, the instances of sex offenders returning to prison due to the commitment of a new sex crime is extremely low. Findings: sex offenders returning on a new sex offense was 1.05% Link to Report: http://www.in.gov/idoc/files/RecidivismRelease.pdf Once again, These are not isolated conclusions but are the same outcomes in the majority of reports on this subject from multiple government agencies and throughout the academic community. No one can doubt that child sexual abuse is traumatic and devastating. The question is not whether the state has an interest in preventing such harm, but whether current laws are effective in doing so. Megan’s law is a failure and is destroying families and their children’s lives and is costing tax payers millions upon millions of dollars. The following is just one example of the estimated cost just to implement SORNA which many states refused to do. From Justice Policy Institute. Estimated cost to implement SORNA Here are some of the estimates made in 2009 expressed in 2014 current dollars: California, $66M; Florida, $34M; Illinois, $24M; New York, $35M; Pennsylvania, $22M; Texas, $44M. In 2014 dollars, Virginia’s estimate for implementation was $14M, and the annual operating cost after that would be $10M. For the US, the total is $547M. That’s over half a billion dollars – every year – for something that doesn’t work. http://www.justicepolicy.org/images/upload/08-08_FAC_SORNACosts_JJ.pdf. Attempting to use under-reporting to justify the existence of the registry is another myth, or a lie. This is another form of misinformation perpetrated by those who either have a fiduciary interest in continuing the unconstitutional treatment of a disfavored group or are seeking to justify their need for punishment for people who have already paid for their crime by loss of their freedom through incarceration and are now attempting to reenter society as honest citizens. When this information is placed into the public’s attention by naive media then you have to wonder if the media also falls into one of these two groups that are not truly interested in reporting the truth. Both of these groups of people that have that type of mentality can be classified as vigilantes, bullies, or sociopaths, and are responsible for the destruction of our constitutional values and the erosion of personal freedoms in this country. I think the media or other organizations need to do a in depth investigation into the false assumptions and false data that has been used to further these laws and to research all the collateral damages being caused by these laws and the unconstitutional injustices that are occurring across the country. They should include these injustices in their report so the public can be better informed on what is truly happening in this country on this subject. Thank you for your time.

  2. Freedom as granted in the Constitution cannot be summarily disallowed without Due Process. Unable to to to the gym, church, bowling alley? What is this 1984 level nonsense? Congrats to Brian for having the courage to say that this was enough! and Congrats to the ACLU on the win!

  3. America's hyper-phobia about convicted sex offenders must end! Politicians must stop pandering to knee-jerk public hysteria. And the public needs to learn the facts. Research by the California Sex Offender Management Board as shown a recidivism rate for convicted sex offenders of less than 1%. Less than 1%! Furthermore, research shows that by year 17 after their conviction, a convicted sex offender is no more likely to commit a new sex offense than any other member of the public. Put away your torches and pitchforks. Get the facts. Stop hysteria.

  4. He was convicted 23 years ago. How old was he then? He probably was a juvenile. People do stupid things, especially before their brain is fully developed. Why are we continuing to punish him in 2016? If he hasn't re-offended by now, it's very, very unlikely he ever will. He paid for his mistake sufficiently. Let him live his life in peace.

  5. This year, Notre Dame actually enrolled an equal amount of male and female students.

ADVERTISEMENT