Recession-Era Office Openings Are Paying Off, Says Barnes & Thornburg
As the legal industry reeled in 2009, Barnes & Thornburg gambled on launching new offices in Delaware, Georgia, Minnesota and Ohio. How are they faring 10 years on?
October 16, 2019 at 03:00 PM
5 minute read
Barnes & Thornburg was looking to scale up from a superregional law firm to a national one at the same time the global economy began to crash.
As the the legal industry reeled from the Great Recession, the Indianapolis-based law firm in 2009 launched new offices in Atlanta; Columbus, Ohio; Minneapolis; and Wilmington, Delaware. Although each office has grown at different rates—some slowly—the firm is celebrating their collective success and the 10th anniversary of their openings.
"I've been waiting for this phone call for a long time," Robert Grand, the firm's managing partner, told The American Lawyer. "Well, when you open up four offices in 2009, you remember what the economy looked like in 2009. There were a lot of people who thought that, by 2019 or even sooner than that, we'd be singing a different tune."
The firm identified Atlanta, Columbus, Minneapolis and Wilmington as being "strategic to building a national law firm" in 2007 and 2008. The impetus, in part, came from clients that were demanding larger legal teams to handle complicated issues, Grand said.
Had Barnes & Thornburg decided to "hit the pause button" and not open those offices, it probably would have been acquired by a larger firm, Grand speculated.
Paradoxically, Dan Scott, a Midwest-based consultant with Angott Search Group, said Barnes & Thornburg may partly have the recession to thank for whatever success it has found. That's because companies may reward law firms located in cheaper markets as they work to decrease their outside counsel costs, Scott wrote in an email.
"The length of the 2009 recession made this more than a passing trend," Scott added. "Barnes was the right firm at the right time with the right plan to take advantage of national market pressures."
Zeughauser Group consultant Kent Zimmermann said Barnes & Thornburg appears to have outperformed the Am Law 100 on firmwide revenue growth since 2009, according to financial data collected by ALM. Zimmermann said the firm's practice areas gave it an advantage in prior economic downturns, adding that he considers the firm to be well managed.
"Most of the firm's growth in the last 10 years has been in markets that have gotten increasingly competitive, but the firm has held its own and is continuing to grow," Zimmermann said.
Still, financial data collected by ALM shows that Barnes & Thornburg, ranked 93rd on the Am Law 100, hasn't always kept pace in growing revenue, revenue per lawyer and profits per partner in recent years.
Although the firm's overall revenue has grown each year since 2014, the percentage of growth has fluctuated between less than 1% and just under 7%. The firm's head count also grew faster than its revenue last year.
Grand said Barnes & Thornburg is currently looking both to add offices in new locations and bolster the staff of its existing locations. He said the firm has struggled with growing its Columbus and Wilmington offices.
Grand described Columbus as a "very difficult" market that the firm is choosing to double down on: Over the past few years, the firm has been converting the Columbus office from a branch that focused on labor and employment issues to a full-service office.
Barnes & Thornburg had four lawyers working in Columbus in 2009, according to ALM data. According to the firm's website, there are 21 people working in the firm's Columbus office, including partners, associates, an office administrator and a lobbyist.
"We think there's a lot of opportunity in Ohio," Grand said. "It just hasn't grown as much as we'd like."
The firm's Wilmington office has also grown slowly and steadily from one person in 2009 to 11. Barnes & Thornburg is hoping to have 12 to 15 lawyers working out of Delaware within the next three to five years, Grand said.
Grand attributed Wilmington's slow growth to the difficulty of the Delaware bar exam: Unlike other states, Delaware does not offer any bar reciprocity to any other state. The Delaware bar exam also has the highest minimum-scoring threshold in the country.
|Read More
Dentons Combines With Two US Firms in One Go, Launching New American Strategy
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllQuinn Emanuel Has Thrived in China. Will Trump Help Boost Its Fortunes?
Trending Stories
- 1Gibson Dunn Sued By Crypto Client After Lateral Hire Causes Conflict of Interest
- 2Trump's Solicitor General Expected to 'Flip' Prelogar's Positions at Supreme Court
- 3Pharmacy Lawyers See Promise in NY Regulator's Curbs on PBM Industry
- 4Outgoing USPTO Director Kathi Vidal: ‘We All Want the Country to Be in a Better Place’
- 5Supreme Court Will Review Constitutionality Of FCC's Universal Service Fund
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250