Ice Miller sees big gain in attorneys employed

June 11, 2013
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The National Law Journal has released its list of the 350 largest U.S. law firms in 2012 and Indianapolis-based Ice Miller LLP tops one area – gains by percentage of lawyers.

According to the NLJ, Ice Miller went from 219 attorneys in 2011 to 301 in 2012 – a 37.4 percent change. Much of that increase could be attributed to Ice Miller merging with Schottenstein Zox and Dunn Co., LPA in late 2011, a deal that was finalized in January 2012.

Ice Miller ranks No. 143 on the list, up nearly 40 spots from the 2011 rank. It’s not the highest-ranked Indianapolis-based firm. That distinction goes to Barnes & Thornburg LLP, which went up five spots in the 2012 list to No. 87. Other firms with Indianapolis as their largest U.S. office include Bingham Greenebaum Doll LLP at No. 188; Hall Render Killian Heath & Lyman P.C. at No. 238; and Krieg DeVault LLP at No. 320.

Ogletree Deakins Nash Smoak & Stewart, which has an Indianapolis office, saw a big leap in associate hiring in 2012. It had 221 associates in 2012 as compared to 177 in 2011, a nearly 25 percent increase. The firm’s website currently lists six associates in the Indianapolis office.

You can view the complete list on the NLJ’s website.
 

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. 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