ILNews

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.

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. 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