We don’t publish rumors January 5, 2009
Posted by jmehalik , add a commentToday’s blog is from IL managing editor Betsy Brockett:
Day after day, we read stories in the National Law Journal and other legal publications about how the tumultuous economy has hit the legal profession again and again. Even close to home, judges and attorneys talk about how hard the Indiana legal community has been hit. Some trial court judges have had to fight budget cuts just to keep their courts running smoothly. Budgets and the bottom lines aren’t on the minds of just law firm management.
Yes, the Indiana legal community has been hit hard … or so we’ve heard, but we’re not in the business of publishing rumors.
In recent months a judge wondered why we haven’t been covering how hard the downturn has impacted our legal professionals. We’ve published stories about the sour economy and various sectors of the legal community for several issues now.
Recently, a lawyer called the office wanting to know the scoop about the layoffs in Indianapolis. Well, we hear the rumors, too. Some even merit investigation.
Associate positions cut. Summer associate programs cut or trimmed. Administrative/support staff reduced. Non-equity partners let go. We’ve heard it all. The problem: the people in positions to address the rumors have chosen to ignore the opportunity to set the record straight.
People wear their rose-colored glasses when they talk with us. No one will name names. Some firms claim any changes are just a result of regular housecleaning or an annual shakeup.
Yes, we understand it’s about public perception and local, state, regional, national reputation … and the bottom line. But IL’s job is to cover our local legal community, which also is our readership. There is a legitimate way and reason to report any such happenings – talk with us about such decisions, about the strength of your commitment to being responsible to your clients and partners.
Sure, times may be tough, but claiming all is rosy can sometimes be counterproductive as rumors grow and exacerbate any bad perceptions. Honest explanations can often stall the rumor mill, garner support … and maybe even help people.
How? Because if people share how they’re combating this economy’s negative effects, someone else may learn something that helps them or someone may be able to help with the problem.
If people – individuals or corporate clients – mistake a shoring up of expenses as something more serious like an impending implosion, the truth is much better than rampant rumors.
You want the news. We’re trying to deliver. And the truth doesn’t always hurt.
New Year’s resolutions December 30, 2008
Posted by jmehalik , add a commentIt’s the time of year when we reexamine the past and look to a new year with hope and excitement in terms of bettering ourselves with resolutions. Exercise more; eat less; travel more; stop smoking. Many people make personal resolutions, but do you ever make professional resolutions?
Are you looking to do more pro bono in ’09? Do want to spend less time working and more time with your family or do you hope to put in even more hours in your quest to become partner? Are you going to reach out to more potential clients or do a better job keeping in touch with current ones?
If you’ve made resolutions, let’s hear them.
Happy New Year and we’ll see you in 2009.
Complaint reignites debate December 19, 2008
Posted by jmehalik , add a commentAt the end of October, I wrote about Indianapolis defense attorney Bob Hammerle filing a complaint with the Disciplinary Commission regarding television ads run by Attorney General Republican candidate Greg Zoeller. Hammerle has since heard back and I thought you’d like to know what the outcome of his complaint was, seeing that Zoeller will be our new attorney general.
Hammerle recently sent us the response from the Disciplinary Commission, which did not find an appropriate basis for formal action. Donald Lundberg noted that it would be difficult to punish Zoeller’s campaign speech in the ads aimed at Democratic opponent Linda Pence because it deals with public affairs and political discourse, which is at the heart of the First Amendment.
Lundberg did say in the letter that Hammerle’s complaint about the ads touched on a debate that’s happened in the legal community for years – should attorneys be judged by the clients they keep?
In theory, the answer is no, but in practice, some people’s opinions of certain attorneys may be defined by the clients they represent. Lundberg sees this debate as more of a philosophical one than one as foundation for disciplinary actions. Because this has been such an ongoing topic in legal ethics, we think the idea deserves a closer look. Indiana Lawyer reporter Michael Hoskins is going to explore this issue in a future issue of the paper. I’ll let you know when it will be published.
What’s in a name? December 17, 2008
Posted by jmehalik , 1 comment so farAfter reading the comments on our last post, I wanted to expound on my previous post on law firm name changes.
Firm names evolve with the addition or departure of partners. That’s the nature of the business. It’s when we lose a firm name completely to an outside firm that it alters the way I perceive the firm. Again, I know that with these mergers, the attorneys and staff are pretty much remaining the same and it’s just a minor change.
But names can have a lot of power over people’s perceptions; think how long some parents agonize over the “perfect” name for their child, aiming for one that is tease-proof or unique. When a firm has built a reputation in the community, name recognition can be a great marketing tool. That name recognition is gone the instant an Indiana firm merges with an out-of-state firm.
It’s as if these renamed firms have to start over to recapture that recognition by the general public. Someone who has lived in Indiana a long time or knows a little about the legal community would recognize “Ice Miler” or “Locke Reynolds,” but they might not be familiar with “Frost Brown Todd” or “Taft Stettinius & Hollister.”
As I touched upon in my last post, it may just be a matter of time before these new names can be recalled by the general public, and me, as an Indiana firm. After all, I’m sure it took some in the legal community a while to get used to saying Ice Miller instead of its previous longer name. These out-of-state named firms will have to continue being active both in the legal and general communities, letting people know who they are.
As always, I appreciate your comments and encourage you to keep the dialogue going about this topic and other topics, or anything else you think is worth mentioning here in First Impressions.
Mergers end Indiana names December 15, 2008
Posted by jmehalik , 3commentsSommer Barnard – gone. Locke Reynolds – gone beginning next year. Yes, the attorneys and staff remain in Indiana, but the names have changed or soon will change. Their new names come from firms based outside of the state.
It’s just a name change, right? What’s the big deal? As Shakespeare wrote in “Romeo and Juliet”: “What’s in a name? That which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet.”
Yes, it may be just a name change and little else, but it feels like the Indiana legal community is shrinking. With these mergers and name changes, the firms may grow physically in size, but the names among those that dominated Indiana’s legal community for decades have disappeared.
Locke recently announced its merger with Frost Brown Todd of Cincinnati and Louisville.
When I hear the name “Taft Stettinius & Hollister,” I relate it to Cincinnati. It’s been seven months since Sommer Barnard became Taft, but my perception of it as an outside firm in Indiana’s legal market is still the same. I don’t know if it will take seven more months to change my mind or if I ever will think of Taft as an Indiana firm. The same will be true with Locke.
Do law firm name changes have any kind of affect on the attorneys who work for those firms or the legal community in general? How do you feel to see established Indiana firm names disappear from the legal landscape?
More law firm job cuts December 12, 2008
Posted by jmehalik , add a commentIs it harder on the psyche of the legal community to hear of cuts and mergers from a large firm as opposed to a smaller one? That thought popped into my head after learning about the 22 staff cuts at Baker & Daniels’ offices in Indianapolis and Fort Wayne.
To read about 22 cuts by one, large firm as opposed to a couple of cuts at a few small firms invokes a stronger gut reaction from me. The same is true with law firm mergers. In my mind, it makes sense for two firms with three or four attorneys each to merge to strengthen their practices. But when two larger firms, (which I consider to be 75 or so attorneys or more) combine forces, I automatically think one or both of the firms was in trouble and had to merge to survive. I just assume a larger firm should be able to weather an economic storm better than a small firm, but I guess it all depends on how a firm operates.
In the end, job cuts are job cuts, no matter who makes the cut or how condensed or spread out those cuts are, but I just can’t help assuming the worst when I read or learn about larger firms making those cuts. Am I just being cynical or does anyone else feel the same way?
Support staff spread thinner December 10, 2008
Posted by jmehalik , 1 comment so farLet’s keep this blog’s discussion about law firm staff cuts going and talk about support staff cuts today. The National Law Journal has an article about paralegal, secretary, and other support staff cuts at firms. Firms are looking to cut costs wherever they can, whether it’s by slashing marketing departments (see previous blog posts), trimming support staff, or letting go of underperforming associates.
Having one paralegal per attorney may not be the best business decision for most firms, but spreading out a paralegal and support staff amongst four, or more, attorneys could backfire. The paralegals’ workloads will increase dramatically, leading to slowdowns until they can adjust (if they can adjust). More work means less time to devote to items, which could cause their work to suffer, which impacts the attorneys’ work.
It also will lead to attorneys having to pick up the slack in order to keep clients happy and most likely billing clients for the work. I guess that’s one way to bring more money into a firm.
I understand that businesses have to make money, that’s why they are a business and not a non-profit. However, does it make the most business sense to cut from non-legal departments and support staff than cutting attorneys?
Marketing cuts “dumb” December 8, 2008
Posted by jmehalik , 1 comment so farHere’s a little more on the topic of law firm marketing cuts. Reporter Michael Hoskins spoke to an expert at Altman Weil, a legal consulting firm, last week for a story on a different topic and the two also briefly discussed marketing cuts. According to Altman Weil principal Tom Clay, slashing or eliminating marketing is “one of the dumbest things” he could imagine doing right now.
A firm could save money by cutting back on ads, but why would it want to cut back on things that will help the firm directly get clients and more revenue, Clay questioned.
Clay is pretty to the point in what he thinks about marketing cuts. In this current economy, is cutting marketing really one of the “dumbest” things a firm could do right now, or would it be worse to cut attorneys?
Firm mergers & the economy December 4, 2008
Posted by jmehalik , add a commentLooks like Locke Reynolds answered the question I posed in a blog from October.
Locke confirmed they are merging with Louisville-Cincinnati firm Frost Brown Todd and taking that firm’s name. This is the second merger a large Indianapolis firm has undertaken this year. In May, Sommer Barnard became Taft Stettinitus & Hollister.
Plus, the Indianapolis Business Journal has reported that Ice Miller is set to merge with Louisville firm Greenebaum Doll & McDonald. Which firm could be next?
Law firms in Indianapolis claim the economy isn’t that bad right now and they aren’t experiencing the issues that the big firms in larger cities like Chicago or New York are facing.
We hear about things happening at law firms – whether it’s staff layoffs, merger discussions, or trimming summer associate positions – but when we try to confirm these things with firms, we get a denial, a “no comment”, or no response at all. Firms have no problem calling us or reaching out to us when they want us to know about a new practice group they’ve created or that a partner has been selected for a committee with a charitable group.
Can the Indiana legal community still say that its not being affected by this current economy now that we’ve got at least two large firms that have merged with out-of-state firms this year? That’s not even taking into account the smaller firms around the state that have joined forces in the last year. Is our legal community in denial, or are these mergers not an indicator that Indiana’s legal community is struggling and firms are looking to remain indispensable?
Marketing cuts: good or bad? December 3, 2008
Posted by jmehalik , 2commentsHow essential are law firm marketing departments? I guess it depends who you ask.
That department is taking a hit because of the economy, according to a recent article in The National Law Journal. Law firms that are struggling to stay afloat or maintain their practices see the marketing department as more expendable than a practice group or handful of attorneys. Other firms, however, believe now is the right time to step up marking efforts.
In a tough economy, which is the better business strategy for a firm: cut or increase your marketing?
If a firm has little to no marketing, then it will have less exposure to potential clients. Less exposure brings fewer clients, and fewer clients mean the practice will continue to struggle and could face cutting another department or more attorneys. The vicious cycle could continue until the economy picks up.
Cutting back on marketing would be more harmful to smaller firms, newer firms, or firms that haven’t already done a good job getting their name out to the general public. The bigger firms may not take as big of a hit if they cut marketing because they may already have brand-name recognition.
Attorneys and partners at a firm are often responsible for keeping clients or bringing in new ones, but can they do it without a marketing department?