ILNews

Bingham McHale forms economic development affiliate

IL Staff
January 1, 2007
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
Indianapolis law firm Bingham McHale has created its own independently operated and managed affiliate focused on economic development relating to site-selection analysis, incentive procurement and fulfillment, and community development and planning.

The firm announced today the formation of Bingham Economic Development Advisors LLC (BEDA), recruiting five professionals from Carmel consulting firm Ginovus LLC. Leaving Ginovus late last week were Jay Walters, Jenny Massey, Suzanne Davis, Linda Williamson, and Sara McGoun, according to the law firm.

The new Bingham McHale practice will be based at 8900 Keystone Crossing.

Walters will be president of the new Bingham affiliate, with Davis and Williams serving as vice presidents.

"Our team is looking forward to a successful relationship with Bingham McHale," Walters said in a news release. "We believe that the services we offer complement Bingham McHale's strengths in local government, environmental and business law. Together, we can provide comprehensive economic development services for our clients."

A news release sent from Ginovus founder Larry Gigerich, economic development director under former Indianapolis Mayor Stephen Goldsmith and who started his firm in 2002 as an affiliate of law firm Sommer Barnard, says that three professionals have been hired since the departures.Along with accountant Jill Beckman, who will serve as operations director, and Denise Settlemyre, who will be the administrative project manager, attorney Richard Rowley has joined Ginovus and will serve as special counsel. He will continue his work as a member of Sommer Barnard's Business Law Practice Group, focusing his legal practice on business transactions and representing clients before the Indiana General Assembly.
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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Such things are no more elections than those in the late, unlamented Soviet Union.

  2. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  3. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  4. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  5. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

ADVERTISEMENT