ILNews

Planning ahead for retirement

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

For attorneys who may be making a New Year’s resolution to consider retirement in 2011, 2012, or even 2013, it’s never too early to start planning.

To help attorneys get a head start, the Indiana Judges and Lawyers Assistance Program partnered with the Indiana State Bar Association to run seminars around the state during 2010.

Close Since he started winding down his practice in 2006, Avon bankruptcy attorney Nicholas Schmutte has enjoyed spending more time with his horses. He said he doesn’t regret retiring and has no plans to return to the practice of law. (IBJ Photo/ Perry Reichanadter)

JLAP has also helped a number of attorneys facing retirement, something executive director Terry Harrell said JLAP has been hearing about more and more in recent years.

The calls started, she said, because attorneys were noticing other attorneys should retire due to memory problems or other issues in the office. They sometimes called Harrell and her staff for advice.

As a way to let the entire legal community know that not all lawyers need to practice into their 70s or 80s, especially if they can no longer keep up with the demanding job of being a lawyer, she said JLAP started making retirement more of a priority.

“We can assist lawyers with any career transition, including retirement,” she said. “There are situations where retired lawyers will thrive and there are situations where they might be in trouble, might be depressed. We want to help them. … We love to meet with attorneys before they retire to talk to them about what they can expect in terms of the emotional aspects.”

For instance, attorneys who retire without something else in their lives tend to have a harder time making the transition. She strongly suggests attorneys start a hobby, volunteer, or travel, something to keep them engaged as they shift from full-time worker to retiree.

But before retirement happens, attorneys must take the proper steps to close down an office. Those steps include making a timeline that ends after current cases are scheduled to be wrapped up, telling others at the firm, informing clients about the decision and their options to find a new lawyer for future representation, sending clients a copy of their file, deciding how long to keep client files and having a plan to eventually destroy them, and figuring out what to do with everything associated with the office such as furniture and phone lines.

At the end of this list, the attorney must also inform the Indiana Supreme Court of his or her retired status. After this is filed, an attorney can no longer practice law.

Harrell added attorneys sometimes forget this step, which means the attorney would likely face fines and/or other disciplinary actions.

In addition to the sessions about retiring that took place this summer, how to close an office due to retirement or for other reasons is often discussed at legal conferences.

For instance, Grant Superior Judge Warren Haas participated on panels about this topic for the Indiana State Bar Association in October 2006 and again for the Indiana Continuing Legal Educational Forum in October 2008.

retirementBefore he ran for judge in 2008, he said he was concerned about what would happen to his practice if he was involved in an emergency.

He started a solo practice May 5, 1976, and he said he wanted to make sure that his clients would be taken care of if anything happened to him.

“Because the practice of elder law is fairly technical, my client contracts normally contained a paragraph naming a successor attorney, if I would become unable to complete work due to death or disability,” Judge Haas said via e-mail. “Unearned fees were always placed in trust and the arrangement was for that money to be transferred to the successor attorney to complete the work. My primary concern was to protect my clients.”

While he didn’t end up closing his office due to any emergencies, he did decide to run for judge and made arrangements to transfer his practice after deciding to participate in the 2008 election.

He started working with Teri Pollett, who had been in Grant County for a few years and had an interest in elder law. They agreed to operate as a general partnership starting Aug. 1, 2008. He gave her control of the files starting Dec. 30, 2008, and the general partnership was dissolved. Judge Haas started serving as a judge Jan. 1, 2009.

Another attorney who decided to shut down his office was Avon attorney Robert McDowell.

“It’s easier to open a practice than to stop,” he said. “When you first open your doors, you invite people you know to an open house and hope you get enough clients to keep going. I’ve been in the process of retiring for two years.”

McDowell, 63, said he told his clients and the other attorneys in his small firm in mid-2008 that he planned to start winding down his practice. His goal at the time was to retire by the end of that year.

Knowing he would continue to get calls and mail, McDowell had his office phone number forwarded to his home phone. He continues to visit the office once a week to pick up his mail.

While his practice has slowed down, he still receives five to 10 calls a week, including new client referrals.

In some of those cases, he said, callers have fairly simple questions he can answer. If he knows the question isn’t simple, if it’s a potential new client, or an old client who didn’t pay him before he started shutting down his office, he’ll refer the client to another attorney.

While with the Avon Law Office of Singer McDowell & Schmutte, McDowell practiced mostly family law. Prior to that, he worked for the legal department for Rolls Royce, formerly Allison Gas Turbine Division of General Motors. While working for Rolls Royce, he also had a small part-time civil practice.

He recalls that when he retired, he benefitted from the experience of his partner, Nicholas Schmutte, 68, who had joined the practice full-time in 2002 as a bankruptcy attorney. Schmutte had also worked for Rolls Royce’s legal department while practicing part-time.

Schmutte decided to retire two years earlier in 2006, when he decided to run for judge in Hendricks County. He told his partners in mid-2006 that on Jan. 1, 2007, he would either be on the bench or retired.

While McDowell had a difficult time ending his family law practice, Schmutte said he thought he was lucky because bankruptcy cases tend to have a defined end date.

Schmutte continued to do some bankruptcy work after slowing down his practice, which included leaving his office space to work from home. He said he again notified clients and other lawyers that he’s officially finished as of the end of 2010.

While they have both slowed down their practices, they have no plans to slow down their lives.

McDowell said he has done some legal work for his wife’s consulting firm, including contracts. He also has a couple of open cases and said he has considered volunteering to take on pro bono cases.

Schmutte said he continues to remain active with the Hendricks County Bar Association as a way to socialize with other attorneys. He also owns two horses and keeps them on his property, and he spends much of his time with them, including camping trips.

“I’m pretty satisfied with the way it worked out,” McDowell said of his retirement. “It was helpful to see Nick do it first, and keeping the phone number was a good idea. The downside is the phone rings all the time, but I figure if I don’t get it, it goes to voicemail, and I can get to it on my own time.”•

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
2015 Distinguished Barrister &
Up and Coming Lawyer Reception

Tuesday, May 5, 2015 • 4:30 - 7:00 pm
Learn More


ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. The $320,000 is the amount the school spent in litigating two lawsuits: One to release the report involving John Trimble (as noted in the story above) and one defending the discrimination lawsuit. The story above does not mention the amount spent to defend the discrimination suit, that's why the numbers don't match. Thanks for reading.

  2. $160k? Yesterday the figure was $320k. Which is it Indiana Lawyer. And even more interesting, which well connected law firm got the (I am guessing) $320k, six time was the fired chancellor received. LOL. (From yesterday's story, which I guess we were expected to forget overnight ... "According to records obtained by the Journal & Courier, Purdue spent $161,812, beginning in July 2012, in a state open records lawsuit and $168,312, beginning in April 2013, for defense in a federal lawsuit. Much of those fees were spent battling court orders to release an independent investigation by attorney John Trimble that found Purdue could have handled the forced retirement better")

  3. The numbers are harsh; 66 - 24 in the House, 40 - 10 in the Senate. And it is an idea pushed by the Democrats. Dead end? Ummm not necessarily. Just need to go big rather than go home. Nuclear option. Give it to the federal courts, the federal courts will ram this down our throats. Like that other invented right of the modern age, feticide. Rights too precious to be held up by 2000 years of civilization hang in the balance. Onward!

  4. I'm currently seeing someone who has a charge of child pornography possession, he didn't know he had it because it was attached to a music video file he downloaded when he was 19/20 yrs old and fought it for years until he couldn't handle it and plead guilty of possession. He's been convicted in Illinois and now lives in Indiana. Wouldn't it be better to give them a chance to prove to the community and their families that they pose no threat? He's so young and now because he was being a kid and downloaded music at a younger age, he has to pay for it the rest of his life? It's unfair, he can't live a normal life, and has to live in fear of what people can say and do to him because of something that happened 10 years ago? No one deserves that, and no one deserves to be labeled for one mistake, he got labeled even though there was no intent to obtain and use the said content. It makes me so sad to see someone I love go through this and it makes me holds me back a lot because I don't know how people around me will accept him...second chances should be given to those under the age of 21 at least so they can be given a chance to live a normal life as a productive member of society.

  5. It's just an ill considered remark. The Sup Ct is inherently political, as it is a core part of government, and Marbury V Madison guaranteed that it would become ever more so Supremely thus. So her remark is meaningless and she just should have not made it.... what she could have said is that Congress is a bunch of lazys and cowards who wont do their jobs so the hard work of making laws clear, oftentimes stops with the Sups sorting things out that could have been resolved by more competent legislation. That would have been a more worthwhile remark and maybe would have had some relevance to what voters do, since voters cant affect who gets appointed to the supremely un-democratic art III courts.

ADVERTISEMENT