ILNews

Law firm's longtime chief gives suitors cold shoulder

Scott Olson
February 27, 2013
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
Alan Levin has been managing partner of Barnes & Thornburg LLP for 16 years, far longer than the heads of most major Indianapolis law firms. But what most sets him apart is that he’s built his firm into a national practice by taking the maverick approach of going it alone instead of merging with an out-of-state rival.

Partners in December elected Levin, 58, to another three-year term, the sixth time they’ve done so in his 31-year legal career spent entirely at Barnes & Thornburg.
 

levin01-15col.jpg Alan Levin acknowledges that the law firm gets proposals from competitors interested in taking Barnes & Thornburg as a merger partner, but he consistently rebuffs them. (IBJ Photo/ Perry Reichanadter)

The firm has swelled in size since he took the helm. It now boasts about 550 lawyers in 12 offices, a whopping 135-percent increase from 16 years ago.

The firm’s total number of lawyers easily ranks it among the 100 largest in the country, National Law Journal rankings show.

“With a merger, you get a lot of lawyers real quick,” Levin said. “With us, it’s been gradual. But we’re comfortable with that approach.”

Barnes & Thornburg typically launches an office with just a few lawyers and grows it as necessary. Its latest addition, in Los Angeles, is a prime example. The office launched in 2011 with one lawyer and since has grown to 25.

Where Barnes & Thornburg might put down stakes next is uncertain. But what’s clear is that the growth has made it an attractive merger partner.

The firm has entertained several marriage proposals throughout the years – a few even seriously – but has never made it to the altar for fear of losing control of local operations.

Still, suitors come calling, sending out feelers to Levin nearly every month, only to be rebuffed.

Mike Williams, managing partner of Krieg DeVault LLP, the city’s sixth-largest firm, respects what Levin has accomplished. Having served as managing partner for 23 years, even longer than Levin, Williams has witnessed Indianapolis’ changing legal landscape that has swallowed up several firms.

“I would say from all appearances, they’ve been very successful with their geographic growth and their belief that they need to be in other markets outside of Indiana but still retain their corporate headquarters in Indianapolis,” Williams said. “That’s what we’ve done as well on a smaller scale.”

Tennis anyone?

Levin’s leadership style may best be described as fiercely competitive yet consensus-building.

His competitiveness can be traced to his love of tennis, which led him to play collegiately at the University of Pittsburgh. A native of Erie, Pa., Levin returned to the city to attend Mercyhurst College for his third and final year, graduating in 1976.

His command of the racket led him to Sandusky, Ohio, where he managed a tennis club for two years. He moved to Indiana upon landing a job as a tennis pro at a new club in Anderson.

But following in the footsteps of his father, a labor lawyer, Levin ultimately chose to pursue a legal career and enrolled in law school at Indiana University in Bloomington in 1979.

He served a summer clerkship at Barnes & Thornburg and has been at the firm since graduating in 1982.

Barnes & Thornburg formed the same year when locally based Barnes Hickam Pantzer & Boyd merged with South Bend-based Thornburg McGill Deahl Harman Carey & Murray.

Practicing in the tax area, Levin achieved partnership in 1990 and ascended to managing partner of the entire firm in 1997 after first leading Barnes & Thornburg’s Indianapolis office.

Barnes & Thornburg since has more than doubled its roster of lawyers both in Indianapolis and nationwide, often taking him out of the office and away from his law practice.

The strains of serving as a managing partner, and for as long as Levin has, are not lost on Julie Armstrong, executive director of the Indianapolis Bar Association.

“It’s just so stressful, and it requires you not to just be a lawyer but a businessperson who also practices law,” she said. “Many people don’t have an interest to do that and even more people say they don’t have the skill set to do that.”

Benefits of expansion

The firm’s dozen offices nationally are enough to land it coveted national law firm status among legal observers. That’s significant because the firm can serve clients from multiple parts of the country rather than defer to outside lawyers for assistance. In addition, and even more important, it gains access to new clients that otherwise would be unreachable.

Barnes & Thornburg officially launched the West Coast practice in February 2011, stretching its presence to the four major regions of the United States.

Before opening the Los Angeles office, Barnes & Thornburg entered Atlanta, Minneapolis and Columbus, Ohio, in 2009. The firm has additional locations in Elkhart, Fort Wayne and South Bend, as well as in Chicago; Washington, D.C.; Grand Rapids, Mich.; and Wilmington, Del.

The Indianapolis office has 237 attorneys. The Chicago office, with about 100 lawyers, is Barnes & Thornburg’s second-biggest.

Conversely, several outside firms have entered Indianapolis by opening offices or absorbing existing practices. The more prominent players include Greenville, S.C.-based Ogletree Nash Smoak & Stewart PC and Cleveland-based Benesh Friedlander Coplan & Aronoff LLP, in addition to Cincinnati firms Taft Stettinius Hollister LLP and Frost Brown Todd LLC.

Adding to the tumult: Two of Indianapolis’ largest firms, Baker & Daniels LLP and Bingham McHale LLP, merged with outside rivals to become Faegre Baker Daniels LLP and Bingham Greenebaum Doll LLP.

Keeping its headquarters in Indianapolis allows Barnes & Thornburg to charge Midwestern fees, which are typically lower than in many parts of the country. Owning its building at 11 S. Meridian St. doesn’t hurt the rate structure, either.

So, while Levin isn’t willing to predict how many more terms he’ll serve as managing partner, he’s doubtful a merger is in the cards anytime soon.

“I think it’s highly unlikely that that would happen,” Levin said.

And that suits firm partners like John Maley just fine.

“It’s not an accident,” he said of the firm’s strategy. “It’s part of the strategic planning that the partnership has long supported.”•

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. Indianapolis employers harassment among minorities AFRICAN Americans needs to be discussed the metro Indianapolis area is horrible when it comes to harassing African American employees especially in the local healthcare facilities. Racially profiling in the workplace is an major issue. Please make it better because I'm many civil rights leaders would come here and justify that Indiana is a state the WORKS only applies to Caucasian Americans especially in Hamilton county. Indiana targets African Americans in the workplace so when governor pence is trying to convince people to vote for him this would be awesome publicity for the Presidency Elections.

  2. Wishing Mary Willis only God's best, and superhuman strength, as she attempts to right a ship that too often strays far off course. May she never suffer this personal affect, as some do who attempt to change a broken system: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QojajMsd2nE

  3. 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.

  4. 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?

  5. 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

ADVERTISEMENT