You might describe attorney Chris W. Cotterill as a rising star in the Hoosier legal community.
At age 33 and less than a decade out of law school, he's gone from working as an associate at a private law firm, then
serving as general counsel for a key state technology department, to becoming Indianapolis and Marion County's top in-house
lawyer and now chief of staff for the city's mayor.
This is all within seven years of graduating in 2002 from what's now Indiana University Maurer School of Law - Bloomington.
While he's technically stepped out of the Office of Corporation Counsel and being the city-county's top lawyer after
almost two years, Cotterill remains a key advisor for Mayor Greg Ballard and now considers himself a different kind of in-house
counsel for the state's largest city.
"You can take the lawyer out of the courtroom, but you can't take the lawyer out of the person," he said. "This
is very different from that of the corporate counsel, in that you're not handling litigation or discussing the latest
Supreme Court decision, but you're using your skills as a lawyer to find common ground and be strategic."
Cotterill took over as chief of staff in December following the resignation of Paul Okeson, a non-lawyer who left to take
another job. Cotterill describes his role in this job as providing counsel to the mayor and other administration officials.
His duties come on the heels of his job as corporation counsel, where from January 2008 to December 2009 he was able to eliminate
a backlog of about 200 discrimination claims and a severalyear-old backlog of civil-code violations, as well as reducing overhead
expenses to shift more funds to increase the number of cases prosecuted against those civil-code violators. He also spearheaded
Ballard's ethics-reform package that put higher ethical standards in place for officials, appointees, and employees.
For example, Cotterill said he coordinated the city's attorneys for the most efficiency. Prior to his arrival, every
public records request required a review from city legal. Roughly 90 percent of those didn't need a specific review and
could be handled administratively, Cotterill said, so he worked to de-lawyer that process.
Deputy chief counsel Samantha Karn succeeded Cotterill as corporation counsel and said her predecessor really paved the way
for a more efficient legal department for Indianapolis.
Prior to joining Ballard's team, Cotterill served since early 2005 as general counsel for the Indiana Office of Technology.
As part of that role, he managed the state government's official Web site at www. IN.govand that meant overseeing an annual
budget of $150 million. Before that, he was a part of Gov. Mitch Daniels transition team, drafting many of the governor's
initial executive orders and providing legal support on various topics.
The Indianapolis native graduated from Wabash College in 1999 and after graduating from law school in Bloomington in 2002
he became a Barnes & Thornburg associate handling commercial litigation defense.
Many of those same roles are what he's dealing with now as chief of staff, a position that doesn't require a law
degree, but Cotterill said it only benefits him in handling those responsibilities.
"In my current role, I'm a corporation lawyer serving in a government position that doesn't require one to be
a lawyer but can only be enhanced by having a lawyer in this role," he said.
He's using his legal experience and inhouse counsel background to navigate issues such as mass transit, hospital ownership,
private taxing, and government referendums and reorganization.
"The law for me is much of what government is about, and I love it," he said. "You bring a lawyer's training
to this job in looking at all of these topics. They all trigger legal issues, and it's about me knowing those legal issues
are there and trying to get the right people to understand what's going on at a deeper level."
Rafael Sanchez, a partner at Bingham McHale in Indianapolis who went to law school with Cotterill, said his close friend
and colleague had a lasting impact on the city's legal department and that continues in his current role.
"Government is a business and you have to treat it that way, and his in-house experience is pretty unique for a chief
of staff," Sanchez said. "He's seen the bad side of the law - the litigation side - and he's seen the consequences
of that angle and can now help make better legal decisions as counsel for Mayor Ballard. Putting all the litigation and business
sides together, that's a perfect combination for running a city. Chris is the calm within the storm and has a genuine
feel for getting the job done, in the legal world or not."
Noting that he's biased about his law school classmate, Sanchez wondered where Cotterill might end up after this - such
as a bid for mayor someday. Whatever happens, he sees a bright future for his colleague.
While Cotterill isn't yet planning what his future holds, he knows he's been lucky in his first decade since graduating
from college and law school. He doesn't expect that he'll ever return to a law firm environment simply because of
the executive management roles he's held and his passion for serving in government.
"I really didn't think I'd be in government this long, but it's been really rewarding. I'm a part of
making life better for people, and that's why I do it and enjoy it," Cotterill said. "You can make government
sing for you, and it's a great, great thing. Government can't solve everything, but with the problems that we should
approach, we can be very effective and that's the fun challenge."
on Facebook & Twitter
Back to Top
G. Michael Witte letter states he's suspended for three years. The case that got him suspended is identical to my estate case, including havin the Late Judge Deiter recuse himself because Newman had a conflict of interest with the judge. His Modus Operandi is nearly identical.
SIGNED BY G. MICHAEL WITTE EXECUTIVE SECRETARY INDIANA SUPREME COURT DISCIPLINARY COMMISSION DATED MAY 17, 2012.
Your 6th complaint against Lawrence T. Newman filed on 4/12/2012. On 1/31/12, the Indiana Supreme Court entered an order suspending Lawrence T. Newman’s law license for a period of three years. More important, even after three years, Lawrence Todd Newman will not get his license back unless and until he goes through a separate proceeding to prove that he is fit to practice law. This is not an easy process, and the burden is upon Lawrence T. Newman to prove by clear and convincing evidence that he is fit to return to practice.
Because of the length of Lawrence T. Newman’s license suspension and the fact he may never succeed in getting his law license reinstated, we are not opening an investigation file at this time.
Should Lawrence T. Newman seek reinstatement in the future, we will open your file and ask Lawrence T. Newman to address your grievance as part of his burden of proving fitness. We have attempted to notify Lawrence T. Newman that this will be required of him.
It may disappoint you to hear that we will be doing nothing on your grievance at this time. However, the most our office can ever accomplish is to take away a lawyer’s license to practice law. We have already done that, albeit as a result of misconduct in cases other than your own. It makes better sense for our office to focus its limited resources on cases where the lawyers are still actively practicing law.
Is there any justice in the Marion County Superior Court Civil Division? I am the unfortunate victim of a retaliatory lawsuit brought by Lawrence Todd Newman, the attorney from an estate case on which I worked as a unsupervised personal representative in 2006. The contract agreement for that case stated that the estate would be responsible for all attorney fees, but Newman refused to close the nearly insolvent estate when my duties were complete and his fees were paid. Instead, he tried to extort additional attorney fees from me by keeping the case open to address a wrongful death claim, despite the estate’s heir’s lack of interest in pursuing it and an expert doctor’s opinion that it would not be worth doing so. He also knowingly deceived me into believing that a “closing statement” was needed to close the estate, even though this requirement had actually been waived by the estate’s heir. The heir’s attorney filed a motion to have Newman removed from the case. After the court closed the probate case with prejudice (barred from further litigation) Newman illegally re-opened the case in another courtroom.
As a result of complaints filed against him for these and similar actions, Newman has been suspended from practicing law for 18 months by the Indiana Disciplinary Commission. In retaliation, he has filed suit against me demanding additional attorney fees for the 2006 estate case, despite the fact that I made no agreement stating that I would pay any fees from my own assets on behalf of the estate. This lawsuit violates the rules of ethics, due process of law, and equal protection of law. Newman has been allowed to file ridiculous pleadings at an alarming rate and has been supported by a biased court system. Judge Carroll refuses to recuse himself from the case despite the fact that, by his own admission, he intends to grant Newman sanctions regardless of the evidence. When my former counsel discovered that the previous judge on the case, Judge Sosin, was a long-time close friend of Newman’s family, Judge Carroll commented for the record during a hearing that Judge Sosin in so many words “he finds the door “was weak for recusing himself from the case as a result of this obvious conflict of interest.
This case is a public policy issue. Statutes put in place to protect unsupervised personal representatives in probate matters are being ignored. This case will affect thousands of individuals involved in probating and the personal representation of estates. Justice cannot possibly be served as long as a biased judge is allowed to defend a “vexatious litigant,” as Newman has been described by Judge Logan in Bradenton, Florida court. If there is any justice in the Marion County Superior Court Civil Division, this case against me will be dismissed with prejudice.
Every affront to decency and every style adopted by criminals is not per se a constituttional violation. Only fools believe or espouse that.
This was an unnecessary change in law, a needless fiddling with a tax that impacted very very few hoosiers, but one that erodes a tax base benefitting very many hoosiers. Just because some people wanted to chalk up a "tax cut" on their legislative brag-list, and didnt give a fig about replacing the revenue any other way. Really stupid. I am a republican my whole life and this just shames me like hell. I have to use a fake name over this because I know my fellow republicans are all brain washed over tax cutting too.