Mergers end Indiana names

December 15, 2008
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
Sommer Barnard – gone. Locke Reynolds – gone beginning next year. Yes, the attorneys and staff remain in Indiana, but the names have changed or soon will change. Their new names come from firms based outside of the state.

It’s just a name change, right? What’s the big deal? As Shakespeare wrote in “Romeo and Juliet”: “What’s in a name? That which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet.”

Yes, it may be just a name change and little else, but it feels like the Indiana legal community is shrinking. With these mergers and name changes, the firms may grow physically in size, but the names among those that dominated Indiana’s legal community for decades have disappeared.

Locke recently announced its merger with Frost Brown Todd of Cincinnati and Louisville.

When I hear the name “Taft Stettinius & Hollister,” I relate it to Cincinnati. It’s been seven months since Sommer Barnard became Taft, but my perception of it as an outside firm in Indiana’s legal market is still the same. I don’t know if it will take seven more months to change my mind or if I ever will think of Taft as an Indiana firm. The same will be true with Locke.

Do law firm name changes have any kind of affect on the attorneys who work for those firms or the legal community in general? How do you feel to see established Indiana firm names disappear from the legal landscape?
  • As the last of the Lockes practicing law in Indianapolis, albeit not at the soon-to-be-gone Locke Reynolds, of course I am sad to see the family name disappear from the Indianapolis legal community. My grandfather, Theodore L. Locke, whose name the firm bears, was President of the Indianapolis Bar Association in 1946, among other accomplishments and my father, Ted, Jr., practiced with his father at the firm for many years. It was ironic some years ago when I started practicing at White & Raub, now gone as well, that Maureen Reynolds, granddaughter of the other Locke Reynolds founder, started at the firm at the same time and we were announced together on the same formal mailing -- Locke and Reynolds join White & Raub, so to speak!
    Cindy Locke
  • When I started practicing Bayh,Tabbert & Capehart, Johnson Smith & Densborn, Lowe Gray Steele & Hoffman,Bingham Welch Summer & Spielman, Barnes Hickam Panzer & Boyd and Dutton Kappes & Overman were some of the larger firms in town. Ice Miller had Donadio & Ryan attached at the end and Baker Daniels had a longer name that I cannot remember. Nile Stanton was the big name in criminal defense-of course Jim Voyles has been around since Calvin Coolidge was in the White House. The Law Office of Linda Pence had not yet opened and threatened the boys club and Judges Dillin,Steckler and Holder were on the bench. Writing
  • Holder still makes me quake but that is for another,later comment. The Where have all the law firms gone song has been sung for years. I suspect that law firm names in Indianapolis in 2038 will differ from those now in use but there will still be good people living in the community practicing law. What\'s in a name?

Post a comment to this story

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
  1. Lori, you must really love wedding cake stories like this one ... happy enuf ending for you?

  2. This new language about a warning has not been discussed at previous meetings. It's not available online. Since it must be made public knowledge before the vote, does anyone know exactly what it says? Further, this proposal was held up for 5 weeks because members Carol and Lucy insisted that all terms used be defined. So now, definitions are unnecessary and have not been inserted? Beyond these requirements, what is the logic behind giving one free pass to discriminators? Is that how laws work - break it once and that's ok? Just don't do it again? Three members of Carmel's council have done just about everything they can think of to prohibit an anti-discrimination ordinance in Carmel, much to Brainard's consternation, I'm told. These three 'want to be so careful' that they have failed to do what at least 13 other communities, including Martinsville, have already done. It's not being careful. It's standing in the way of what 60% of Carmel residents want. It's hurting CArmel in thT businesses have refused to locate because the council has not gotten with the program. And now they want to give discriminatory one free shot to do so. Unacceptable. Once three members leave the council because they lost their races, the Carmel council will have unanimous approval of the ordinance as originally drafted, not with a one free shot to discriminate freebie. That happens in January 2016. Why give a freebie when all we have to do is wait 3 months and get an ordinance with teeth from Day 1? If nothing else, can you please get s copy from Carmel and post it so we can see what else has changed in the proposal?

  3. Here is an interesting 2012 law review article for any who wish to dive deeper into this subject matter: Excerpt: "Judicial interpretation of the ADA has extended public entity liability to licensing agencies in the licensure and certification of attorneys.49 State bar examiners have the authority to conduct fitness investigations for the purpose of determining whether an applicant is a direct threat to the public.50 A “direct threat” is defined as “a significant risk to the health or safety of others that cannot be eliminated by a modification of policies, practices or procedures, or by the provision of auxiliary aids or services as provided by § 35.139.”51 However, bar examiners may not utilize generalizations or stereotypes about the applicant’s disability in concluding that an applicant is a direct threat.52"

  4. We have been on the waiting list since 2009, i was notified almost 4 months ago that we were going to start receiving payments and we still have received nothing. Every time I call I'm told I just have to wait it's in the lawyers hands. Is everyone else still waiting?

  5. I hope you dont mind but to answer my question. What amendment does this case pretain to?