ILNews

Second lobbyist leaves Indianapolis-based firm

Michael W. Hoskins
January 1, 2007
Keywords
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
Indianapolis-based Barnes & Thornburgh has lost two of its lobbyists who have been linked to a congressional bribery and corruption scandal surrounding jailed lobbyist Jack Abramoff.

Kevin A. Ring resigned Friday from the Washington, D.C., office, managing partner Alan Levin said. This comes more than a year after another lobbyist, Neil Volz, severed his ties with the firm ;s Washington office.

The resignation comes amid an ongoing corruption investigation with congressional ties, and Ring ;s background working at Abramoff ;s law firm in Florida has surfaced in media reports in past years. Before joining Barnes & Thornburg in 2005, Ring had worked for Abramoff at Florida law firm Greenberg Traurig.

Ring ;s attorney, Richard A. Hibey at Miller & Chevalier in Washington, D.C., did not return messages this morning.

"There has never been a suggestion that any of the lobbying activities under investigation occurred at Barnes & Thornburg," Levin said. "All of these issues occurred before (they) came to the law firm, and we see this as having no effect on our ability to continue to deliver the same services we have been. We have a strong practice, and we ;ll continue to have that strong presence, both locally and in Washington."

About 10 people work in the firm ;s Washington, D.C., office in the lobbying practice, Levin said, as well as a number of lobbyists and attorneys based in Indianapolis. Another Abramoff lobbyist – of counsel Edward Ayoob – remains with the firm ;s Washington, D.C., office and has not been implicated in the scandal, Levin said.

 
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
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Major social engineering imposed by judicial order well in advance of democratic change, has been the story of the whole post ww2 period. Contraception, desegregation, abortion, gay marriage: all rammed down the throats of Americans who didn't vote to change existing laws on any such thing, by the unelected lifetime tenure Supreme court heirarchs. Maybe people came to accept those things once imposed upon them, but, that's accommodation not acceptance; and surely not democracy. So let's quit lying to the kids telling them this is a democracy. Some sort of oligarchy, but no democracy that's for sure, and it never was. A bourgeois republic from day one.

  2. JD Massur, yes, brings to mind a similar stand at a Texas Mission in 1836. Or Vladivostok in 1918. As you seemingly gloat, to the victors go the spoils ... let the looting begin, right?

  3. I always wondered why high fence deer hunting was frowned upon? I guess you need to keep the population steady. If you don't, no one can enjoy hunting! Thanks for the post! Fence

  4. Whether you support "gay marriage" or not is not the issue. The issue is whether the SCOTUS can extract from an unmentionable somewhere the notion that the Constitution forbids government "interference" in the "right" to marry. Just imagine time-traveling to Philadelphia in 1787. Ask James Madison if the document he and his fellows just wrote allowed him- or forbade government to "interfere" with- his "right" to marry George Washington? He would have immediately- and justly- summoned the Sergeant-at-Arms to throw your sorry self out into the street. Far from being a day of liberation, this is a day of capitulation by the Rule of Law to the Rule of What's Happening Now.

  5. With today's ruling, AG Zoeller's arguments in the cases of Obamacare and Same-sex Marriage can be relegated to the ash heap of history. 0-fer

ADVERTISEMENT