Indiana firm opens Atlanta office

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Barnes & Thornburg, one of the largest Indiana-based law firms, has opened an office in Atlanta.

"Atlanta is a strong financial center, and we thought we'd be a good fit," said the firm's managing partner Alan Levin, who announced the expansion this morning. He added that while financial centers are hurting in the current economy and financial growth may not be what it has been, Atlanta is still a significant market.

The office opened Saturday with partners Stuart C. Johnson and Jason A. Bernstein. Johnson is now a partner in Barnes & Thornburg's business department, and Bernstein is a partner in the firm's intellectual property department. The two were previously partners in the Atlanta office of Bryan Cave Powell Goldstein. That firm was the result of a Jan. 1, 2009, merger of Atlanta-based Powell Goldstein and St. Louis-based international law firm Bryan Cave; Powell Goldstein's name is being retained temporarily only in that merged firm's Atlanta office.

Levin said Barnes & Thornburg has had good growth here, including in its office in Chicago, which he referred to as a kind of capital of the Midwest.

"We're looking at Atlanta as kind of the capital of the Southeast and a good market to gain entry to," Levin said.

"We've always been conservative about our growth and have managed our costs well so we have remained competitive with our rates," said Levin, who noted the firm has not had any reductions in force.

Firm management is aware of law firm layoffs in Atlanta, but the city - like Chicago - is competitive and they anticipate growing the office to reflect the needs and skills sets required for that market, said Levin.

He added they have no hard numbers by which they hope to grow the Atlanta office, but he said they will aggressively recruit lateral attorneys in all practice areas with the intention of growing a full-service office in Atlanta, similar to its approach in Chicago. Atlanta is the firm's eighth office in the U.S.

Barnes & Thornburg opened its Chicago office with one attorney in 1994; it now has more than 80 attorneys. The firm opened an office in Grand Rapids, Mich., with two attorneys and has grown to more than 20 lawyers in five years. The firm also recently hired attorneys for its Grand Rapids and Washington, D.C., offices. Based in Indianapolis, the firm has 517 legal professionals - 456 attorneys plus paralegals and law clerks - firm-wide and also has offices in Elkhart, Fort Wayne, and South Bend.


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
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  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?