Bloomberg News for www.theindianalawyer.com

Law firm mergers show no signs of abating. That’s the takeaway from a report from legal consultant Altman Weil Inc., which tracks the number of combinations — both large and small – among firms.

In the third quarter of 2015, 20 law firm combinations were announced in the U.S. There have been 68 announced so far this year, the most recorded in that period in the nine years that Altman Weil MergerLine has been compiling data, the consulting firm said in a statement.

“There’s quite a lot of activity of large general practice firms acquiring IP boutiques,” Altman Weil principal Eric Seeger said in an interview. “In addition, large firms are looking to acquire litigation boutiques and the large national employment firms are always looking to acquire small employment firms.”

The growth in small-firm acquisitions stems from the realization that “everyone is trying to do lateral hiring,” Seeger added. “But it can be hard to meet growth goals that way, because it can be a slow and expensive process, so firms look for small firms that can be acquired in their entirety.”

In addition, “quite a few big firms are talking” to each other, although “that’s always the case,” he said. “We won’t, however, be surprised to see a major merger occur.”

Scott Olsen for www.theindianalawyer.com

A local billboard firm is suing the city of Indianapolis, claiming a recent Supreme Court of the United States decision makes the city’s sign ordinance unconstitutional.

In the meantime, the same court decision has spurred city staff to review the sign ordinance for compliance.

GEFT Outdoor LLC filed the lawsuit last week in federal court in Indianapolis. It is asking a judge to bar the city from enforcing its ban on digital billboards, among other complaints. Indianapolis banned digital billboards in 2003.

“It in effect will render Indianapolis’ sign ordinance unconstitutional,” GEFT owner Jeff Lee said of his lawsuit.

In Reed v. Town of Gilbert, the Supreme Court unanimously ruled that the Arizona town had violated the First Amendment by placing limits on the size of signs announcing church services.

The case, brought by a church and its pastor, concerned an ordinance in Gilbert that placed special restrictions on political and ideological signs, as well as signs that provide directions.

GEFT’s lawsuit alleges Indianapolis violates the First Amendment by having different standards for “on premises” and “off premises” signs. The on-premises signs, which advertise solely for the business in the same location as the sign, are allowed to have digital content. Off-premises signs, which advertise for a business or product located or made available elsewhere, are not allowed to have digital content.

“It’s simply a content issue,” said lawyer A. Richard M. Blaiklock, who is representing GEFT. Because the Indianapolis ordinance imposes more restrictions on one type of content than another, it is unconstitutional, he said.

On the same grounds, the suit objects to special regulations on signs that express noncommercial opinions or points of view, such as political, religious or ideological sentiment related to a public election.

GEFT’s lawsuit concerns three locations in Indianapolis where it either owns or leases billboards.

At two of the properties—4305 W. Morris St. and 5780 E. 25th St., both near Interstate 70—GEFT wants to display digital content on the off-premises billboards and has filed for a zoning variance with the city.

A city planning employee on Sept. 17 informed GEFT that the planning department intended to issue a staff report recommending that one of the city’s board of zoning appeals deny the requests, according to GEFT’s suit. Both requests are set to be heard Nov. 5.

The digital ban on both signs is costing GEFT a total of $120,000 per month in potential revenue, the suit claims.

At the third location mentioned in the suit, 700 W. Morris St., the city ordinance requires that the sign only display messages pertaining to the business on the premises—Republic National Distributing Co. of Indiana.

The ban on displaying off-premises advertising and noncommercial opinion signs at the site is costing GEFT up to $15,000 per month in potential revenue, according to the suit.

City officials did not respond to a request from IBJ for comment on the suit. However, city staffers are examining the sign ordinance for conflicts with Reed vs. Town of Gilbert, Tammara Tracy, the city’s principal planner, told the Indianapolis Historic Preservation Commission Wednesday evening.

The City-County Council is expected to address the issue Nov. 9.

Jennifer Nelson for www.theindianalawyer.com

The Indiana Court of Appeals agreed with a Fort Wayne police officer that a statement he gave as part of an internal affairs investigation into his role in a break-in of a foreclosed home should not be allowed at his criminal trial.

Fort Wayne Police Sgt. Scott Criswell and the wives of two other Fort Wayne police officers, while at a party, allegedly forcibly entered a nearby home and took a chainsaw and two gas cans. As part of an internal investigation by the police department, Criswell gave a statement regarding the events in question after signing a “Garrity Notice.” The notice said refusal to testify or answer questions could subject him to department charges, including dismissal.

Nearly six months after giving the statement, Criswell was charged with Class A misdemeanors criminal conversion and criminal trespass. He filed a motion to dismiss or suppress, arguing the criminal charges were brought in violation of his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination, as well as the legal protections outlined in Garrity v. New Jersey, 385 U.S. 493 (1967), and Kastigar v. United States, 406 U.S. 441 (1972). The trial court denied his motion, leading to his interlocutory appeal in Scott A. Criswell v. State of Indiana, 02A03-1501-CR-22.

The record shows that Criswell participated in the internal affairs investigation after being notified that his failure to cooperate could result in the termination of his employment, and after being assured, in writing, that any statements he made could not be used against him in any potential subsequent criminal proceedings. Thus, Garrity applies to the instant matter and his motion to suppress should have been granted, Judge Cale Bradford wrote.

The state argued that it had evidence independent of the statement that allowed it to bring criminal charges against Criswell. Criswell maintained that the police detective who interviewed the wives used information from Criswell’s internal affairs statement to guide his interviews.

The appeals court remanded the case to the trial court to determine whether the evidence the state intends to present at trial is wholly independent of Criswell’s suppressed statement. The trial court is to conduct a “Kastigar hearing” during which it closely examines whether any portions of the statements given by the wives or any other evidence was derived, directly or indirectly, from Criswell’s statement.