Is Hall Render marooned at No. 2?

June 18, 2008
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
If a high rank brings bragging rights and marketing juice, then the Indianapolis law firm of Hall Render Killian Heath & Lyman (permission granted to catch your breath) has plenty of ammo.

But it never quite gets the most ammo.

Hall Render was named second-largest health care law firm in the nation by the American Health Lawyers Association this week.

The professional group has placed Hall Render second or third for several years running â?? but never No. 1.

Thatâ??s because the Atlanta colossus King & Spalding is much bigger. This year it had 199 members to Hall Renderâ??s 124.

Still, Hall Render manages to keep its spot by out-growing other firms. In 2005, it managed a No. 2 rank with only 62 members.

A high placing is good for the ego, but are these rankings actually important? Is there a significant difference between No. 1 and 2 when it comes to landing business?
ADVERTISEMENT
  • Current clients certainly don't care, and potential clients most likely won't know nor will they even care if Hall Render is #1 or #2 on some highly subjective list. Such lists have little to no value, and sometimes are the result of how some administrative person filled out a particular form. And, big is not always better. If I was a prospective health care client, I would want to know if I will be able to get the close, personalized attention I need with a firm that seems to be infatuated with size. I am more concerned with service. If the results are good, the service is good and the fees are competitive, I could care less how many lawyers are with the firm.

Post a comment to this blog

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 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
ADVERTISEMENT
  1. I always giggle when I read comments from people complaining that a market is "too saturated" with one thing or another. What does that even mean? If someone is able to open and sustain a new business, whether you think there is room enough for them or not, more power to them. Personally, I love visiting as many of the new local breweries as possible. You do realize that most of these establishments include a dining component and therefore are pretty similar to restaurants, right? When was the last time I heard someone say "You know, I think we have too many locally owned restaurants"? Um, never...

  2. It's good to hear that the festival is continuing to move forward beyond some of the narrow views that seemed to characterize the festival and that I and others had to deal with during our time there.

  3. Corner Bakery announced in March that it had signed agreements to open its first restaurants in Indianapolis by the end of the year. I have not heard anything since but will do some checking.

  4. "The project still is awaiting approval of a waiver filed with the Federal Aviation Administration that would authorize the use of the land for revenue-producing and non-aeronautical purposes." I wonder if the airport will still try to keep from paying taxes on these land tracts, even though they are designated as "non aeronatical?"

  5. How is this frivolous? All they are asking for is medical screenings to test the effects of their exposure. Sounds like the most reasonable lawsuit I've read about in a while. "may not have commited it" which is probably why they're suing to find out the truth. Otherwise they could just ask Walmart, were you negligent? No? OK, thanks for being honest.

ADVERTISEMENT