ILNews

Switching sides: defenders become plaintiffs' attorneys

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
Indiana Lawyer Focus

Bloomington attorney Mike Phelps was a successful defender for insurance companies for nine years. State Farm, Allstate, Monroe Guaranty – he represented some of the biggest names in the business. But a personal injury case that he won on behalf of the defendant caused him to question whether he was ready for a change. Phelps is now among a handful of lawyers in Indiana who’ve made the switch from defender to plaintiffs’ counsel.

Making the change
In 2005, Phelps represented a farmer defending a claim against his Allstate insurance liability policy. Phelps said that the farmer was clearing debris from his property and had piled cardboard boxes in a heap, doused them in gasoline, and asked a friend to burn the boxes. The friend was severely burned when the spark from his lighter caused an explosion.

“The jury found that despite all the facts, the farmer did not act negligently,” Phelps said. “And because of that, the plaintiff did not recover a dime.”

Phelps said he believed the injured man’s hospital bills exceeded $100,000.

ITLA“That case just really, really made me feel bad,” Phelps said. And while he was mulling over the outcome of that trial, he got a call from personal injury attorney Ken Nunn, inviting him to join his practice. Phelps seized the opportunity to reinvent his career.

Tess White had worked for several insurance companies in her 13 years as a defense attorney before she decided she wanted to head in a new direction.

“In 2008, after working for Liberty Mutual for about three years, I just felt like on the defense side that we weren’t really practicing law, and I was ready for a bigger and better challenge and decided to start my own firm and switch sides,” she said. She started the Indianapolis law firm White & Champagne with colleague Joan Champagne, who focuses on family law – a staffing choice that was practical, White said, because litigators don’t get paid until they win a verdict.

“The idea was that Joan would focus on hourly work, to keep the lights on,” White said.

Working for insurance companies was “more about being a cog in a corporate wheel,” White said. Her decision to begin representing plaintiffs was largely due to her desire to help individuals, rather than corporations.

Jon Schmoll’s decision to change sides was motivated by his respect for a peer.

“I think it was a situation where I had great opportunity to practice law with an attorney that I’ve known for a long time – Steve Langer – and I’ve always respected Steve for his competence, his work ethic, and his ethics,” Schmoll said.

Schmoll worked primarily on medical malpractice cases for Merrillville firm Spangler Jennings & Dougherty for nearly 42 years before joining Langer & Langer in Valparaiso. He said his work as a plaintiffs’ attorney isn’t fundamentally different than the work he performed on the defense side.

“I don’t think there’s a lot of difference… obviously the main difference is that the plaintiff has the burden of proof,” Schmoll said. He said that he thinks attorneys on both sides are working hard to help their clients, so in that respect, he sees their roles as essentially the same.

white-tess-mug.jpg White

Pete Palmer, partner with the New Albany firm Palmer Thompson Law, said he thinks clients increasingly expect attorneys to have clear allegiances. And Schmoll said, “The insurance companies make it very clear that you can’t be on both sides of the equation when it comes to doctors and hospitals.”

Peer reaction
Defenders-turned-plaintiff lawyers say that, despite the sometimes adversarial nature of trials, they haven’t experienced any significant criticism of their decision to switch sides. Just as athletes who play with intensity during a game are able to shake hands after the final buzzer sounds, opposing attorneys are also able to interact amicably at the end of a trial. In fact, Phelps tried several cases against attorneys from Nunn’s office before joining the firm.

Schmoll also said that he has not noticed any difference in the way his peers have treated him since switching sides.

He said that the professional relationships he built as a defender have endured, despite the fact that he may be representing different parties nowadays.

Job satisfaction
White seems to have found that human element that was lacking in her former position.

“It’s been much more rewarding, because I actually have a human being client that is depending on me to help them – somebody who’s never been through this process, who doesn’t know what to do, who’s injured, has bills mounting – so that’s much more rewarding, but it’s also more demanding.”

Phelps also has found in plaintiff work the personal interaction that was missing from his role defending insurance companies.

“I had a trial probably about a year and a half ago – my client was hurt really bad. To this day, he calls me on Christmas, he calls me on Thanksgiving to say, ‘Hey I appreciate it,’” Phelps said. “That’s something you don’t get from an insurance company.”•

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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. It's a big fat black mark against the US that they radicalized a lot of these Afghan jihadis in the 80s to fight the soviets and then when they predictably got around to biting the hand that fed them, the US had to invade their homelands, install a bunch of corrupt drug kingpins and kleptocrats, take these guys and torture the hell out of them. Why for example did the US have to sodomize them? Dubya said "they hate us for our freedoms!" Here, try some of that freedom whether you like it or not!!! Now they got even more reasons to hate us-- lets just keep bombing the crap out of their populations, installing more puppet regimes, arming one faction against another, etc etc etc.... the US is becoming a monster. No wonder they hate us. Here's my modest recommendation. How about we follow "Just War" theory in the future. St Augustine had it right. How about we treat these obvious prisoners of war according to the Geneva convention instead of torturing them in sadistic and perverted ways.

  2. As usual, John is "spot-on." The subtle but poignant points he makes are numerous and warrant reflection by mediators and users. Oh but were it so simple.

  3. ACLU. Way to step up against the police state. I see a lot of things from the ACLU I don't like but this one is a gold star in its column.... instead of fighting it the authorities should apologize and back off.

  4. Duncan, It's called the RIGHT OF ASSOCIATION and in the old days people believed it did apply to contracts and employment. Then along came title vii.....that aside, I believe that I am free to work or not work for whomever I like regardless: I don't need a law to tell me I'm free. The day I really am compelled to ignore all the facts of social reality in my associations and I blithely go along with it, I'll be a slave of the state. That day is not today......... in the meantime this proposed bill would probably be violative of 18 usc sec 1981 that prohibits discrimination in contracts... a law violated regularly because who could ever really expect to enforce it along the millions of contracts made in the marketplace daily? Some of these so-called civil rights laws are unenforceable and unjust Utopian Social Engineering. Forcing people to love each other will never work.

  5. I am the father of a sweet little one-year-old named girl, who happens to have Down Syndrome. To anyone who reads this who may be considering the decision to terminate, please know that your child will absolutely light up your life as my daughter has the lives of everyone around her. There is no part of me that condones abortion of a child on the basis that he/she has or might have Down Syndrome. From an intellectual standpoint, however, I question the enforceability of this potential law. As it stands now, the bill reads in relevant part as follows: "A person may not intentionally perform or attempt to perform an abortion . . . if the person knows that the pregnant woman is seeking the abortion solely because the fetus has been diagnosed with Down syndrome or a potential diagnosis of Down syndrome." It includes similarly worded provisions abortion on "any other disability" or based on sex selection. It goes so far as to make the medical provider at least potentially liable for wrongful death. First, how does a medical provider "know" that "the pregnant woman is seeking the abortion SOLELY" because of anything? What if the woman says she just doesn't want the baby - not because of the diagnosis - she just doesn't want him/her? Further, how can the doctor be liable for wrongful death, when a Child Wrongful Death claim belongs to the parents? Is there any circumstance in which the mother's comparative fault will not exceed the doctor's alleged comparative fault, thereby barring the claim? If the State wants to discourage women from aborting their children because of a Down Syndrome diagnosis, I'm all for that. Purporting to ban it with an unenforceable law, however, is not the way to effectuate this policy.

ADVERTISEMENT