ILNews

Sommer Barnard merging with Ohio firm

Scott Olson
January 1, 2008
Keywords
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
The 64 partners of Sommer Barnard unanimously voted today to approve the firm's merger with Cincinnati-based Taft Stettinius & Hollister.

The vote means Taft Stettinius & Hollister will absorb Sommer Barnard on May 1, meaning Indianapolis will lose one of its largest law firms.

Sommer Barnard was founded in 1969 and has 103 lawyers, making it the seventh-largest in the city, according to Indianapolis Business Journal statistics.

Taft Stettinius, whose roots date to 1885, has 200 lawyers in Cincinnati and additional Ohio offices in Cleveland, Columbus and Dayton. It has locations in Covington, Ky., and Phoenix, as well.

The merger of Sommer Barnard & Taft Stettinius continues an industry-wide trend in which regional and national firms are expanding to serve clients with multiple locations.

Talk of a merger involving Sommer Barnard had swirled for months, fueled by the share of ups and downs it has experienced in the past several years.

The firm acquired the Ancel & Dunlap bankruptcy practice in 2001 and a year later doubled its office space by moving from Chase Tower to One Indiana Square. It merged with the practice of prominent Washington, D.C., trial lawyer and native Hoosier Nels Ackerson the same year to become Sommer Barnard Ackerson Attorneys.

But roughly 12 months later, the marriage began to crack. By the time Ackerson arrived, the corporate defense side of the business had become as large as the plaintiff work. Ackerson's arrival and the conflict of interest it created with the growing defense practice was greater than anticipated, partners said at the time. The relationship ultimately dissolved in July 2004.

The following year, four partners were among six lawyers who jumped ship from Sommer Barnard to Bingham McHale. Among those who left was John Gregg, a former Democratic speaker of the Indiana House of Representatives.

And in 2007, Ginovus, the economic development consulting arm of Sommer Barnard, was forced to retrench after losing most of its professional staff to Bingham McHale, which had launched its own economic development consulting practice.

Recently, Sommer Barnard and Taft Stettinius had worked together on at least one occasion. Lawyers for both firms jointly filed a brief with the U.S. Supreme Court on behalf of the Virginia-based Center for Equal Opportunity and Project 21 supporting Indiana's voter ID law. Justices ruled in favor of the state yesterday.

Sommer Barnard chief operating officer Debra Marple left early this month.
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
2015 Distinguished Barrister &
Up and Coming Lawyer Reception

Tuesday, May 5, 2015 • 4:30 - 7:00 pm
Learn More


ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. The $320,000 is the amount the school spent in litigating two lawsuits: One to release the report involving John Trimble (as noted in the story above) and one defending the discrimination lawsuit. The story above does not mention the amount spent to defend the discrimination suit, that's why the numbers don't match. Thanks for reading.

  2. $160k? Yesterday the figure was $320k. Which is it Indiana Lawyer. And even more interesting, which well connected law firm got the (I am guessing) $320k, six time was the fired chancellor received. LOL. (From yesterday's story, which I guess we were expected to forget overnight ... "According to records obtained by the Journal & Courier, Purdue spent $161,812, beginning in July 2012, in a state open records lawsuit and $168,312, beginning in April 2013, for defense in a federal lawsuit. Much of those fees were spent battling court orders to release an independent investigation by attorney John Trimble that found Purdue could have handled the forced retirement better")

  3. The numbers are harsh; 66 - 24 in the House, 40 - 10 in the Senate. And it is an idea pushed by the Democrats. Dead end? Ummm not necessarily. Just need to go big rather than go home. Nuclear option. Give it to the federal courts, the federal courts will ram this down our throats. Like that other invented right of the modern age, feticide. Rights too precious to be held up by 2000 years of civilization hang in the balance. Onward!

  4. I'm currently seeing someone who has a charge of child pornography possession, he didn't know he had it because it was attached to a music video file he downloaded when he was 19/20 yrs old and fought it for years until he couldn't handle it and plead guilty of possession. He's been convicted in Illinois and now lives in Indiana. Wouldn't it be better to give them a chance to prove to the community and their families that they pose no threat? He's so young and now because he was being a kid and downloaded music at a younger age, he has to pay for it the rest of his life? It's unfair, he can't live a normal life, and has to live in fear of what people can say and do to him because of something that happened 10 years ago? No one deserves that, and no one deserves to be labeled for one mistake, he got labeled even though there was no intent to obtain and use the said content. It makes me so sad to see someone I love go through this and it makes me holds me back a lot because I don't know how people around me will accept him...second chances should be given to those under the age of 21 at least so they can be given a chance to live a normal life as a productive member of society.

  5. It's just an ill considered remark. The Sup Ct is inherently political, as it is a core part of government, and Marbury V Madison guaranteed that it would become ever more so Supremely thus. So her remark is meaningless and she just should have not made it.... what she could have said is that Congress is a bunch of lazys and cowards who wont do their jobs so the hard work of making laws clear, oftentimes stops with the Sups sorting things out that could have been resolved by more competent legislation. That would have been a more worthwhile remark and maybe would have had some relevance to what voters do, since voters cant affect who gets appointed to the supremely un-democratic art III courts.

ADVERTISEMENT