Dickinson Wright PLLC has added intellectual property attorneys from the former Ann Arbor office of IP boutique Brinks Gilson & Lione.
“This is an exceptional group of IP attorneys, with the depth and breadth of knowledge to serve our clients in all industries and service sectors,” said Phil Rettig, Division Director of the firm’s IP practice.
“They bring a varied suite of intellectual property experiences that complement Dickinson Wright’s national IP team, which is now more than 100 attorneys strong.”
Joining Dickinson Wright are: James Cleland, Gerlinde (Linda) Nattler, Steven Oberholtzer, Michael Spink, Keith Weiss, and Sungwook (Sung) Lee.
Dickinson Wright PLLC is a general practice business law firm with more than 475 attorneys among more than 40 practice areas and 16 industry groups. Headquartered in Detroit and founded in 1878, the firm has 18 offices, including six in Michigan: Detroit, Troy, Ann Arbor, Lansing, Grand Rapids, and Saginaw.
- Posted June 25, 2020
- Tweet This | Share on Facebook
Dickinson Wright adds attorneys from Brinks Gilson & Lione
headlines Ingham County
- ABA House of Delegates adopts nearly 30 policies on wide-ranging legal issues
- Champion swimmer dives into law school studies
- Three takeaways from Michigan Law faculty panel on local and national immigration enforcement
- The reality regarding the auto no-fault insurance reform laws, according to CPAN and law firm
- Neutrality, truthfulness, and trust: What ABA Formal Opinion 518 teaches mediators about their role—and their words
headlines National
- Millions of Americans continue to lack meaningful access to justice. What can be done about it?
- ACLU and BigLaw firm use ‘Orange is the New Black’ in hashtag effort to promote NY jail reform
- Federal judge hands down $110K penalty against 2 lawyers for AI errors in court documents
- Former adult film actress passes February bar exam in Texas
- Grad sues George Washington University, Ernst & Young after Gaza ‘genocide’ remarks in commencement speech
- Magicians Penn & Teller file Supreme Court brief questioning use of ‘investigative hypnosis’




