ILNews

Evansville’s Rudolph Fine merges with Jackson Kelly

IL Staff
June 30, 2014
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A 20-lawyer firm in Evansville announced its merger with one of the nation’s 250 largest law firms effective July 1.

Rudolph, Fine, Porter and Johnson LLP will merge with Jackson Kelly PLLC, the companies announced in a statement.

“With complementary skill sets and collective knowledge, the joining of the two firms will enable us to take our clients to the next level with a broader range of resources and services,” Rudolph Fine managing partner Marc D. Fine said.

Chad J. Sullivan, member in Jackson Kelly's Evansville office, said the merger is in response to the continued prosperity of the region and its local businesses.  

“We are honored to add the attorneys of Rudolph, Fine, Porter and Johnson to the firm and are confident that this expansion will improve our ability to help clients take advantage of the increased opportunity in the Tri-State area. As Evansville prepares for growth, so do we,” said Sullivan.

Jackson Kelly, which was founded in 1822 and traces its roots to Charleston, W.Va., opened its 11th office in Evansville with three attorneys in 2011 to serve its growing energy practice and continues to support the energy and manufacturing industries in the area. Its Evansville office will move to Rudolph Fine Porter and Johnson’s downtown office site at 221 NW Fifth St.

Rudolph Fine was founded in 1987 and now has more than 50 attorneys, paraprofessionals and administrators in offices in Evansville and Crawfordsville. The firm’s practice areas include litigation, mediation, estate planning and administration, corporate, health care, banking, employment and real estate law.



 

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. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  2. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  3. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

  4. Here's an idea...how about we MORE heavily regulate the law schools to reduce the surplus of graduates, driving starting salaries up for those new grads, so that we can all pay our insane amount of student loans off in a reasonable amount of time and then be able to afford to do pro bono & low-fee work? I've got friends in other industries, radiology for example, and their schools accept a very limited number of students so there will never be a glut of new grads and everyone's pay stays high. For example, my radiologist friend's school accepted just six new students per year.

  5. I totally agree with John Smith.

ADVERTISEMENT