Barnes & Thornburg maintains top-100 ranking

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
On The Beat Industry News In Brief

Barnes & Thornburg LLP is proving that its entrance last year into the upper echelon of the nation’s largest law firms was no fluke.

The Indianapolis-based firm ranked 85th in The National Law Journal’s annual listing, released Nov. 8, of the nation’s 250 largest firms, up two spots from its previous position.

Barnes & Thornburg has 484 lawyers—one more than it had last year—in offices in seven states and Washington, D.C. The firm has 226 lawyers in Indianapolis and is the largest in the city, according to the most recent IBJ statistics.

The firm has grown its roster of attorneys the past few years roughly 8 percent through office openings and an acquisition.

Barnes and Thornburg Barnes & Thornburg has offices in seven states, including Indianapolis. (IBJ Photo/ Perry Reichanadter)

Two more locally based law firms again made the list, but they fell in the rankings. With 281 lawyers—five less than last year—Baker & Daniels LLP slipped from 149th to 152nd. Ice Miller LLP, with 227 lawyers, lost 16 and fell from 169th to 182nd.

A handful of regional and national firms that have a presence in Indianapolis also made the top 250 list. San Francisco-based Littler Mendelson ranked 44th; Greenville, S.C.-based Ogletree Deakins Nash Smoak & Stewart PC, 90th; Cincinnati-based Frost Brown Todd LLC, 111th; and Cincinnati-based Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP, 149th.

Attorney head counts at the nation’s largest 250 law firms dropped 1.1 percent this year, marking a second consecutive year of decreases. That’s only the second time in the 33-year history of the list that back-to-back declines occurred, NLJ said.


  • Beautiful Building
    I had the chance to inadvertently stumble into the Indianapolis branch upon mistaking it for a bookstore. Splendid Building though!

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 IBJ 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

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
Subscribe to IBJ
  1. So as I read this the one question that continues to come to me to ask is. Didn't Indiana only have a couple of exchanges for people to opt into which were very high because we really didn't want to expect the plan. So was this study done during that time and if so then I can understand these numbers. I also understand that we have now opened up for more options for hoosiers to choose from. Please correct if I'm wrong and if I'm not why was this not part of the story so that true overview could be taken away and not just parts of it to continue this negative tone against the ACA. I look forward to the clarity.

  2. It's really very simple. All forms of transportation are subsidized. All of them. Your tax money already goes toward every single form of transportation in the state. It is not a bad thing to put tax money toward mass transit. The state spends over 1,000,000,000 (yes billion) on roadway expansions and maintenance every single year. If you want to cry foul over anything cry foul over the overbuilding of highways which only serve people who can afford their own automobile.

  3. So instead of subsidizing a project with a market-driven scope, you suggest we subsidize a project that is way out of line with anything that can be economically sustainable just so we can have a better-looking skyline?

  4. Downtowner, if Cummins isn't getting expedited permitting and tax breaks to "do what they do", then I'd be happy with letting the market decide. But that isn't the case, is it?

  5. Patty, this commuter line provides a way for workers (willing to work lower wages) to get from Marion county to Hamilton county. These people are running your restaurants, hotels, hospitals, and retail stores. I don't see a lot of residents of Carmel working these jobs.