ILNews

Suddenly solo

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

At the 2010 Indiana State Bar Association Solo and Small Firm Conference in June, then-ISBA president Roderick Morgan welcomed those in attendance, particularly those who found themselves to be “suddenly solo.”

While he may not be the first to use the phrase, a number of attorneys have found themselves either making that decision or having it made for them in the last couple years.

solo-kassebaum-15col Fishers attorney Jeanette C. Kassebaum is chair of the ISBA’s General Practice Solo and Small Firm Section. She said many attorneys have become solo in recent years for a variety of reasons, sometimes by choice and sometimes by chance. (IBJ Photo/ Perry Reichanadter)

In fact, an all-day CLE on the topic that was scheduled for early February at the Indiana Continuing Legal Education Forum will be rescheduled to take place later this year. Coordinators for the 2011 ISBA Solo and Small Firm Conference are also expecting a number of suddenly solo practitioners to attend that event June 2-4 in French Lick.

Those who have already gone solo tell others in the same situation not to fear, that there are many resources available, including bar associations and solo practitioners, and that there really is enough work to go around for those who want it.

In a December 2010 Res Gestae article, Fishers attorney Jeanette C. Kassebaum, chair of the ISBA General Practice, Solo and Small Firm Section, offered “Tips for the suddenly solo.” In that article, she referenced a September 2010 ABA Journal report that found 419,000 attorneys in the United States are solos, about half of all attorneys.

Kassebaum told Indiana Lawyer there are a variety of reasons why these attorneys are solos, “whether they are solo by choice or solo by chance,” she said.

In her case, Kassebaum said that after she was admitted to the bar in October 1991, she struggled to find her ideal job: working at a small firm in Hamilton County or a neighboring county. In the meantime, she started sharing office space with an attorney in Fishers.

“All that time I was still thinking I would get a job somewhere,” she said. She continued to share space, then served as of counsel for a firm, and, in 1996, she went out on her own.

As to why so many attorneys are solo now, Kassebaum said, “I think people want to go solo to control their own practices. They want to control their own schedules, they want to control the types of cases they handle, they want to control their office environments, and they want to practice in the way they want to.

“They also want to have some control over their work product. I think that’s the driving force behind most attorneys who decide to be solos. They want to take pride in their own work rather than deal with the bureaucracy and social complexities of firms,” she added.

Kassebaum said the economic downturn has also led to more attorneys practicing law independently.

When faced with an uncertain economy, she said, “People are forced to rethink how they can practice. A lot of attorneys in big firms have never done this before. … But when they do get downsized, they realize it’s not terribly insurmountable to do this on your own with the right support and available information.”

She said she has also heard of more recent law school graduates becoming solos because they are having trouble finding work or know there aren’t many firm jobs or government jobs available due to budget cuts.

Solo by chance

Granger attorney Jonathan Watson was laid off from a law firm in late 2009. He said the Elkhart firm was experiencing a downturn because its clients – RV companies – were experiencing their own downturns.

He said the firm was “as amicable as it could be” when they informed him he would lose his job.

“I sent out 40 different resumes and applications,” he said.

He had two interviews, but neither was for a job that would let him stay in the Elkhart area, which was a deal breaker for him and his family.

Ultimately, his father-in-law encouraged him to start his own firm.

He accepts “whatever comes in the door,” including family law, estate planning, small business law, and litigation. He added he will often end up with referrals from other attorneys who do not like to litigate.

He also now has time to be an adjunct professor. He teaches contracts, real estate, and technology in the paralegal studies departments of Indiana University – South Bend and Ivy Tech.

His wife has helped him part-time, and he has been able to do most of the work from his home, he explained, including meetings at a local bank’s community room that he can schedule as needed.

As for attorneys looking to start their own firms, Watson suggests they grow into their office space instead of the other way around.

“Do what you can afford now, and get a bigger office as your office grows,” he said. He also suggested attorneys network with other solo attorneys in their areas and for attorneys that share office space to consider having separate P.O. boxes and separate phone numbers in case the arrangement dissolves.

Indianapolis attorney Joanne McAnlis also lost her job due to the economic downturn. But being proactive helped her prepare.

When she recognized that Duke, her former employer, was going through workforce reductions, she decided to get her broker’s license. She started Counsel Realty LLC and McAnlis Law LLC in 2009.

She said it was the classes she took for her broker’s license that made her realize she wanted to combine her legal experience in contracts with real estate brokering.

“I think I’ve always had an entrepreneurial spirit,” she said. “For years I was trying to figure out what I wanted to do. … I knew that even though I would have a broker’s license and a legal background, if I went to work for someone else I would not use both of those things. … It was a moment of clarity.”

Solo by choice

Indianapolis attorney Maura Hoff, like McAnlis, also credits a moment of clarity about her career with her decision to go solo.

After working for a small firm for four years, she decided she wanted to be “in charge of my own fate.”

A client had also suggested she open her own firm, and she felt that the timing was right. She met with small business advisors and opened her firm’s doors on Oct. 1, 2010. Her practice includes municipal law, business law, and zoning issues.

At the time she went solo, she was a municipal attorney for the city of Lawrence, and that hasn’t changed. When she met with an Indianapolis attorney she knew for advice, that attorney happened to have an extra office, which Hoff now sublets.

She said one of her reasons for opening her own practice was to have a good work-life balance, and it has “worked out better than I expected.”

She explained that she does work more hours than she did at a firm, but she enjoys the flexibility of being able to work from home and that she doesn’t need to be in an office by at a set time every day.

For young attorneys considering this move, Hoff suggested they get a good mentor, build their networks, and gain the confidence to work with clients.

Jeffersonville attorney Ken Doane also recently left a small firm to go out on his own. For Doane, it was a matter of changing practice areas that helped him decide to become a sole practitioner.

At the small firm, he practiced insurance defense but decided he would rather take on personal injury. He also accepts other cases through referrals.

“It’s been a challenging experience,” he said. “I don’t know how the new attorneys do it. I’ve been practicing for almost 15 years. I know the lay of the land with judges. Having been a partner, I know how the business end works. But it’s still been pretty challenging.”

Like many of his peers, Doane said he enjoys the autonomy and learning new things as a solo.

So far, whether solo by chance or by choice, none of these attorneys regret their career change to solo practice.

“I think that it has been more rewarding than I thought it was going to be. I think that people who are on the fence deciding whether or not to do it, should do it. I wasn’t going to do it, until I was pushed out of the nest,” McAnlis said.

“The worst day working for myself is comparable to the best day working for someone else,” she added.•

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. Indiana's seatbelt law is not punishable as a crime. It is an infraction. Apparently some of our Circuit judges have deemed settled law inapplicable if it fails to fit their litmus test of political correctness. Extrapolating to redefine terms of behavior in a violation of immigration law to the entire body of criminal law leaves a smorgasbord of opportunity for judicial mischief.

  2. I wonder if $10 diversions for failure to wear seat belts are considered moral turpitude in federal immigration law like they are under Indiana law? Anyone know?

  3. What a fine article, thank you! I can testify firsthand and by detailed legal reports (at end of this note) as to the dire consequences of rejecting this truth from the fine article above: "The inclusion and expansion of this right [to jury] in Indiana’s Constitution is a clear reflection of our state’s intention to emphasize the importance of every Hoosier’s right to make their case in front of a jury of their peers." Over $20? Every Hoosier? Well then how about when your very vocation is on the line? How about instead of a jury of peers, one faces a bevy of political appointees, mini-czars, who care less about due process of the law than the real czars did? Instead of trial by jury, trial by ideological ordeal run by Orwellian agents? Well that is built into more than a few administrative law committees of the Ind S.Ct., and it is now being weaponized, as is revealed in articles posted at this ezine, to root out post moderns heresies like refusal to stand and pledge allegiance to all things politically correct. My career was burned at the stake for not so saluting, but I think I was just one of the early logs. Due, at least in part, to the removal of the jury from bar admission and bar discipline cases, many more fires will soon be lit. Perhaps one awaits you, dear heretic? Oh, at that Ind. article 12 plank about a remedy at law for every damage done ... ah, well, the founders evidently meant only for those damages done not by the government itself, rabid statists that they were. (Yes, that was sarcasm.) My written reports available here: Denied petition for cert (this time around): http://tinyurl.com/zdmawmw Denied petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): http://tinyurl.com/zcypybh Related, not written by me: Amicus brief: http://tinyurl.com/hvh7qgp

  4. Justice has finally been served. So glad that Dr. Ley can finally sleep peacefully at night knowing the truth has finally come to the surface.

  5. While this right is guaranteed by our Constitution, it has in recent years been hampered by insurance companies, i.e.; the practice of the plaintiff's own insurance company intervening in an action and filing a lien against any proceeds paid to their insured. In essence, causing an additional financial hurdle for a plaintiff to overcome at trial in terms of overall award. In a very real sense an injured party in exercise of their right to trial by jury may be the only party in a cause that would end up with zero compensation.

ADVERTISEMENT