Ice Miller in top 5 of female equity partners

July 30, 2012
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A look at data by the National Law Journal found that Indianapolis-based Ice Miller LLP is third among large law firms in the number of women equity partners. Another firm with Indiana connections also placed high on the list.

The NLJ looked at its 250 survey, which looks at the largest firms in the country to compile its list. Almost 27 percent of Ice Miller’s equity partners are female. Only New York-based Fragomen Del Ray Bernsen & Lowey LLP, and Charleston, W.Va.-based Jackson Kelly PLLC, could boast higher numbers at 42 percent and 28.4 percent, respectively.  

Jackson Kelly has offices in Indianapolis and Evansville.

Only the firms that provided gender breakdowns of their equity partners for 2011 were ranked by the NLJ.

In an article by the NLJ about its findings, Ice Miller deputy managing partner Brenda Horn says that a culture of inclusion is key and that “women felt accepted” at the firm. In a news release from the firm, she points out that Ice Miller was one of the first major firms in Indiana to elect a woman to the partnership and to welcome a minority female into the partnership ranks.

Other firms with Indiana ties ranked include Hall Render Killian Heath & Lyman P.C., which came in at 20 with 20.78 percent female equity partners, and Baker & Daniels (now Faegre Baker Daniels LLP) had 17.03 percent female equity partners and ranked 73. Faegre & Benson, which merged with Baker & Daniels Jan. 1, was ranked 27 with 20.45 percent.

Frost Brown Todd LLC ranked 107 with 15.37 percent female equity partners; Bingham Greenebaum Doll LLP (created by the merger Jan. 2 between Bingham McHale and Louisville-based firm Greenebaum Doll & McDonald) came in 110 with 15.15 percent. Barnes & Thornburg LLP ranked 129, with 13.95 percent.
 

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
  1. 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!!!

  2. 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?

  3. 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?

  4. 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.

  5. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

ADVERTISEMENT