ILNews

Indiana law firms named among best for women

IL Staff
August 9, 2013
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Three law firms based in Indiana or with offices in the state are among the 50 Best Law Firms for Women in the annual list compiled by Working Mother and consulting firm Flex-Time Lawyers LLC

Faegre Baker Daniels LLP, Ice Miller LLP and Littler Mendelson P.C. were named to the list. The rankings are based on firms that lead in attracting, retaining and promoting women attorneys.

The list doesn’t rank firms numerically. At Faegre, 37 percent of attorneys are women as are 20 percent of equity partners. Ice Miller also had 37 percent female lawyers and 24 percent of its equity partners are women. Littler, a San Francisco-based firm with a Northside Indianapolis office, has a force of 49 percent women attorneys, and 27 percent of its equity partners are women.

Working Mother commented on each firm.

Faegre: “The Women’s Forum for Achievement offered by this firm boasts a wide range of useful programs for lawyers, with educational sessions, discussion groups and workshops that cover success strategies, sponsorship, mentoring, leadership development and more.”

Ice Miller: “Intensive mentoring is a boon to new lawyers at this firm, who work with both peers and partners to strengthen core skills and devise long-range plans. On-site exercise classes, reimbursed gym memberships and $1,000 health-savings-account grants encourage fitness.”

Littler: “Showing support for its diverse workforce, this firm maintains myriad affinity groups and a vital women’s leadership initiative, along with sterling benefits and flex schedules. In 2012, 63 percent of associates, 76 percent of counsel and 32 percent of partners (equity and nonequity) were women.”      
 

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. I need an experienced attorney to handle a breach of contract matter. Kindly respond for more details. Graham Young

  2. I thought the slurs were the least grave aspects of her misconduct, since they had nothing to do with her being on the bench. Why then do I suspect they were the focus? I find this a troubling trend. At least she was allowed to keep her law license.

  3. Section 6 of Article I of the Indiana Constitution is pretty clear and unequivocal: "Section 6. No money shall be drawn from the treasury for the benefit of any religious or theological institution."

  4. Video pen? Nice work, "JW"! Let this be a lesson and a caution to all disgruntled ex-spouses (or soon-to-be ex-spouses) . . . you may think that altercation is going to get you some satisfaction . . . it will not.

  5. First comment on this thread is a fitting final comment on this thread, as that the MCBA never answered Duncan's fine question, and now even Eric Holder agrees that the MCBA was in material error as to the facts: "I don't get it" from Duncan December 1, 2014 5:10 PM "The Grand Jury met for 25 days and heard 70 hours of testimony according to this article and they made a decision that no crime occurred. On what basis does the MCBA conclude that their decision was "unjust"? What special knowledge or evidence does the MCBA have that the Grand Jury hearing this matter was unaware of? The system that we as lawyers are sworn to uphold made a decision that there was insufficient proof that officer committed a crime. How can any of us say we know better what was right than the jury that actually heard all of the the evidence in this case."

ADVERTISEMENT