ILNews

Bamberger merger gives Kentucky firm stronger presence in Indiana

Marilyn Odendahl
June 27, 2017
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Since it was founded in 1959, the law firm of Bamberger Foreman Oswald & Hahn LLP has always had an office in the Hulman Building on Fourth Street in Evansville, but by the end of the summer, the mainstay in the local legal community will have a new name and a new location.

Bamberger and Lexington, Kentucky-based Stoll Keenon Ogden PLLC announced Tuesday they have agreed to merge and will join together by Sept. 1. The 10 attorneys in Bamberger’s Evansville will move to the SKO space in the Old National Bank headquarters, creating an office of 17 attorneys.

Altogether, the merged firm will operate as Stoll Keenon Ogden PLLC and have a total of 144 attorneys with offices in Louisville, Lexington and Frankfort, Kentucky; Indianapolis along with Evansville; and Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.

“It’s been an exciting time,” said attorney Christopher Wischer, speaking on behalf of the Bamberger partners. “I’m looking forward to getting over there (in the new office) and getting settled and getting to work.”

The merger will enable Bamberger to provide a broader range of services to existing clients. Being all things to all people is becoming more and more difficult as the legal market changes, Wischer said, and as clients grow in sophistication and legal needs.

The merger will bring a greater wealth of experience and talent to serve existing clients, Wischer said.

For Stoll Keenon Ogden, the merger with Bamberger creates a stronger foothold in the Indiana market. The firm already had an office in Evansville, moving across the Ohio River from Henderson, Kentucky, in 2013, to better service clients in the coal, oil and gas industries. Also, the firm has clients in Indianapolis.

The opportunity to merge with Bamberger was the “perfect fit,” said SKO managing partner P. Douglas Barr.

“We feel like we’re lucky to find the group of lawyers at Bamberger,” Barr said. “They are really good people and good lawyers.”  

The Bamberger firm was founded by Charles “C.E.” Oswald Jr., Fred Bamberger, Robert Hahn and William Foreman, who opened their offices in the Hulman Building in downtown Evansville. It subsequently added offices in Newburgh, Princeton, Posey County and Indianapolis.

Stoll Keenon Ogden traces its roots to 1897 when Richard Stoll took his newly acquired law degree from Yale University and started practicing in Lexington. He was appointed to the University of Kentucky board of trustees in 1898 and served for 50 years, longer than anyone in UK history. The football field was named Stoll Field in his honor in 1916.

In 1930, Stoll, then a judge for the Fayette Circuit Court in Kentucky, joined attorneys Wallace Muir, William H. Townsend and James Park to form Stoll Muir Townsend & Park. A year later, Gayle Mohney joined the firm as a young associate and went on to build a reputation as an outstanding lawyer for thoroughbred interests.

Together, Stoll and Mohney leveraged the firm’s representation of many Lexington thoroughbred horse farms. With Hal Price Headley, they developed a thoroughbred breeders racetrack and sales company, which today is the world’s leading thoroughbred auction company.

Longtime clients with Stoll Keenon include Lexmark, Keeneland race track and Brown Forman.
 

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. He TIL team,please zap this comment too since it was merely marking a scammer and not reflecting on the story. Thanks, happy Monday, keep up the fine work.

  2. You just need my social security number sent to your Gmail account to process then loan, right? Beware scammers indeed.

  3. The appellate court just said doctors can be sued for reporting child abuse. The most dangerous form of child abuse with the highest mortality rate of any form of child abuse (between 6% and 9% according to the below listed studies). Now doctors will be far less likely to report this form of dangerous child abuse in Indiana. If you want to know what this is, google the names Lacey Spears, Julie Conley (and look at what happened when uninformed judges returned that child against medical advice), Hope Ybarra, and Dixie Blanchard. Here is some really good reporting on what this allegation was: http://media.star-telegram.com/Munchausenmoms/ Here are the two research papers: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0145213487900810 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0145213403000309 25% of sibling are dead in that second study. 25%!!! Unbelievable ruling. Chilling. Wrong.

  4. Mr. Levin says that the BMV engaged in misconduct--that the BMV (or, rather, someone in the BMV) knew Indiana motorists were being overcharged fees but did nothing to correct the situation. Such misconduct, whether engaged in by one individual or by a group, is called theft (defined as knowingly or intentionally exerting unauthorized control over the property of another person with the intent to deprive the other person of the property's value or use). Theft is a crime in Indiana (as it still is in most of the civilized world). One wonders, then, why there have been no criminal prosecutions of BMV officials for this theft? Government misconduct doesn't occur in a vacuum. An individual who works for or oversees a government agency is responsible for the misconduct. In this instance, somebody (or somebodies) with the BMV, at some time, knew Indiana motorists were being overcharged. What's more, this person (or these people), even after having the error of their ways pointed out to them, did nothing to fix the problem. Instead, the overcharges continued. Thus, the taxpayers of Indiana are also on the hook for the millions of dollars in attorneys fees (for both sides; the BMV didn't see fit to avail itself of the services of a lawyer employed by the state government) that had to be spent in order to finally convince the BMV that stealing money from Indiana motorists was a bad thing. Given that the BMV official(s) responsible for this crime continued their misconduct, covered it up, and never did anything until the agency reached an agreeable settlement, it seems the statute of limitations for prosecuting these folks has not yet run. I hope our Attorney General is paying attention to this fiasco and is seriously considering prosecution. Indiana, the state that works . . . for thieves.

  5. I'm glad that attorney Carl Hayes, who represented the BMV in this case, is able to say that his client "is pleased to have resolved the issue". Everyone makes mistakes, even bureaucratic behemoths like Indiana's BMV. So to some extent we need to be forgiving of such mistakes. But when those mistakes are going to cost Indiana taxpayers millions of dollars to rectify (because neither plaintiff's counsel nor Mr. Hayes gave freely of their services, and the BMV, being a state-funded agency, relies on taxpayer dollars to pay these attorneys their fees), the agency doesn't have a right to feel "pleased to have resolved the issue". One is left wondering why the BMV feels so pleased with this resolution? The magnitude of the agency's overcharges might suggest to some that, perhaps, these errors were more than mere oversight. Could this be why the agency is so "pleased" with this resolution? Will Indiana motorists ever be assured that the culture of incompetence (if not worse) that the BMV seems to have fostered is no longer the status quo? Or will even more "overcharges" and lawsuits result? It's fairly obvious who is really "pleased to have resolved the issue", and it's not Indiana's taxpayers who are on the hook for the legal fees generated in these cases.

ADVERTISEMENT