Hiscock & Barclay Announces Albany Office Move to Expanded Space at 80 State Street Building
Hiscock & Barclay, LLP is pleased to announce the relocation of its Albany Office to three floors at 80 State Street in Downtown Albany. As the second largest law office in the City of Albany*, the Firm has relocated over 40 attorneys and 20 staff to the new space from its prior location at 50 Beaver Street.
The Firm has entered into a long term lease of 26,700 square feet at 80 State Street with plans for further expansion in the future. As a part of the relocation from its current downtown location, the Firm has invested nearly $1.2 million in construction build-out, new furnishings, and technology upgrades, with the dollars going to local contractors and vendors.
“Over the past 12 months, the Firm looked at multiple locations both within and outside the City of Albany. After careful consideration, including assessing the significant value of operating in the downtown business and professional community, Hiscock & Barclay made the decision to keep our law office in the heart of the State’s Capital,” said Albany Managing Director, Connie Cahill. “Moving into our new space will allow us to actively grow strategic practices such as energy, intellectual property, and public finance while we continue to better serve a growing client roster in the greater Capital Region,” added Cahill.
Hiscock & Barclay, LLP, listed as a “Top 250 Firm” by The National Law Journal, is a full-service, 200-attorney law firm, with offices throughout the major cities of New York State, as well as in Boston, Washington, D.C. and Toronto, providing comprehensive legal and business counsel to a diverse client base in 30 practice areas.
- The Supreme Court Finally Weighs In On The Boundaries Of Copyrightability For Useful Articles
- U.S. District Court In Hawaii Issues TRO to Block Second Travel Ban the Day Before it is Set to Take Effect
- No Apportionment of Fault Where the State Occupies the “Empty Chair”
- New York Appellate Court Holds that Assault Did Not Relieve Insurer of Duty to Defend under Homeowners’ Policy