ILNews

New partnerships require a shared vision, bit of nerve

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Lawyers who’ve teamed up to start firms as partnerships say putting their professional names and reputations on the line together takes mutual trust, respect, a shared vision, and a fair amount of nerve.

Where will clients come from? How will the bills get paid? What if things don’t work out?

“Definitely, those thoughts are there before you take the leap, when you take the leap, and after you take the leap,” said Bob Johnson, who with Travis Jensen formed the personal injury firm of Johnson Jensen LLP in Indianapolis about four years ago.

Johnson said he felt reassured, though, when a veteran lawyer confided in him, “I’m 75 years old, and I still worry about that.”

“Insecurity is always there,” Johnson said. “But you just kind of bear down and put it aside.”

Johnson-Jensen-6-15col.jpg Founders of Indianapolis personal injury firm Johnson Jensen LLP Travis Jensen, left, and Robert Johnson, right, were friends and colleagues who had talked for years about forming a partnership before doing so about four years ago. “I can anticipate what Bob’s going to do,” Jensen said. “And I know he’s going to have my back.” (IL Photo/Eric Learned)

Jensen and Johnson, both Lafayette natives, had worked together at larger firms at different points during their careers – Johnson began practicing in 1993 and Jensen in 1998 – before they realized they had similar ideas for the kind of firm they wanted.

“We really tried to build a practice by trying to utilize technology and go with less mass advertising,” Jensen said. The firm’s website puts a focus on current clients, and the partnership,

which handles personal injury, medical negligence, medical malpractice and other plaintiff injury matters, also was launched on a contingency-fee basis.

“Oftentimes counsel in a relatively new firm will have to finance a case that could take several years to come to conclusion,” he said. “It creates an interesting dynamic.”

But Jensen said results can be measured by the response the firm has received. “The vast majority of new work comes from referrals from attorneys or clients.”

Jensen and Johnson had talked occasionally for years about forming a firm before their plans materialized. “Bob and I both had a lot of choices as to who to partner with,” Jensen said. “I’ve never been more proud to be partnered with somebody than with Bob.”

Straight out of school

Brandon Tate and Kevin Bowen were students at Indiana University McKinney School of Law when they began talking seriously during their second year about starting a firm in Indianapolis upon graduation. Tate & Bowen LLP will mark its first anniversary this fall.

Bowen said both he and Tate passed up good opportunities in order to pursue a common vision. “We both had that entrepreneurial spirit, and we knew this was a worthwhile cause and we could be successful,” Bowen said.

“We started outlining what we wanted in a law firm,” Tate said. “We didn’t want to be a two-attorney office forever.”

Bowen said he used a third-year course on law firm management to develop a business blueprint and budgets complete with how much money he and Tate would have to invest, keeping overhead as low as possible at the start.

The firm’s niche would be family and criminal law for lower-income people who don’t qualify for public defenders or legal assistance. From there, the plan was to grow into a more general practice, Tate said.

“We actually got calls the first day,” Bowen said. “There hasn’t been a whole lot of down time.”

Tate and Bowen said the first year has shattered the expectations of their business plan. With Tate’s experience in contract matters and Bowen’s background in family and criminal law, Tate said the partnership is fielding an increasingly diverse portfolio of clients.

“We can almost double-team the law and learn and teach each other as we learn it,” Tate said.

What matters most

TateBowen-2-15col.jpg Brandon Tate, left, and Kevin Bowen, right, developed a business plan during their third year of law school and opened Tate & Bowen LLP in Indianapolis after passing the bar. The focus was family law and criminal defense for low- to moderate-income people who were just above the threshold for public assistance. “We actually got calls the first day,” Bowen said. (IL Photo/Eric Learned)

Law firm partners agree there’s one overriding quality for a successful partnership.

“Reliability. Period,” Jensen said. “You have to know in this business where things are thrown at you every day that you can’t anticipate you have to have somebody you know you can rely on.

“I can anticipate what Bob’s going to do,” he said. “And I know he’s going to have my back.”

“We figured out we wanted the same thing as far as a law firm,” Johnson said. “We wanted equal responsibility, we wanted to leverage the amazing technology that’s out there to be able to compete with the larger defense firms on cases, and we wanted to practice law the way we wanted to and know we have each other’s backs.”

Johnson said he and Jensen also wanted an environment where communication was open and honest. “I’ve always said the practice of law is hard enough, and if you have issues in the office between partners, it’s almost impossible to practice in a way that’s pleasant or successful.”

Bowen and Tate, meanwhile, agree the differences in their personalities are helpful.

“He’s more reserved while I complemented him on being very outspoken,” Bowen said, and Tate agreed. “He’s more attentive to detail while I’m more ‘big-picture’ oriented.

“We’re friends first and we’ve tried not to let that get in the way of professionalism,” Bowen said. “We do put in the hours, and I trust he’s going to put in as much work as I do.

Tate said law partners need to be able to disagree, argue and come to resolution amicably on issues in cases or on whether to take on a client, for example. “You’re not the sole decision-maker,” he said. “It’s pretty important to know you’ll be able to solve problems with that person.”

Long-term success

James A. Schafer, an attorney for 42 years, has been affiliated with Muncie partnerships since 1981 and currently is in the partnership of Painter & Schafer. He wanted a practice in a smaller city after working for years in Indianapolis.

“You have to get along personally, and your have to have similar thoughts in terms of how to practice,” Schafer said. Like others, he observed that a legal partnership is like a marriage, though he quipped that in law firms, “opposites do not attract.”

Schafer said younger attorneys who are thinking about starting a partnership owe it to themselves to gain some practical experience. He urges young lawyers to take a case to trial to gain experience and not to rely too much on email and social media, which he believes can foster incivility. “Get out and meet people,” he advised. “You’ll get more done.”

Even agreements between unofficial partners need to see things the same way, said Fort Wayne attorney Dan Roby. Unlike formal partnerships, Roby has shared office space and expenses with attorneys over the years, first as Roby & Hood and currently with Tom Manges as Roby & Manges.

“We have no written partnership agreement whatsoever,” Roby said, though attorneys in the office do share liabilities under common malpractice coverage. It’s an amicable arrangement where case-sharing duties and expectations are clear from the beginning, he said. Roby believes more attorneys should consider such arrangements.

“Even sharing office space is a marriage of a sort, and you’ve got to be compatible partners,” Roby said. “You’ve got to be confident that your fellow so-called partner is competent and responsible enough that he or she is not going to get you into trouble.”

Johnson said people embarking on a partnership also have to be prepared to share personal and financial information with their perspective partners. “Let them know where you are in life so you both know where you’re trying to go,” he said.

Tate and Bowen, meanwhile, already have returned to McKinney to share their experience with students and let them know that with a plan, they will be in a position to shape their futures. Tate said it’s a message that resonates in a weak legal job market.

“More people should do it and shouldn’t be afraid to try it,” he said.•
 

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