ILNews

Midwest firms are forgoing headquarters

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

As big Midwestern law firms continue to branch out, their roots are becoming less apparent.

The Nov. 19 announcement that Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP was jumping into the Chicago market through a merger with Shefsky & Froelich reinforced a trend of firms operating in multiple markets without a specified home office.

“We don’t really have a headquarters,” said Robert J. Hicks, partner-in-charge at Taft’s Indianapolis office. Hicks said that as Shefsky considered merger opportunities with 10 firms, Taft’s decentralized management structure that came with a promise of local autonomy “was really the single factor that tipped the merger our way.”

bob hicks Hicks

Historically traced to offices in Ohio, Taft absorbed the Indianapolis firm Sommer Barnard, which began operating under the Taft name in 2008. Taft’s merger with Shefsky becomes official on Jan. 2, 2014, at which time its 70 attorneys also will begin to operate under the Taft name.

The merger will bring Taft to nearly 400 attorneys firm-wide, billing in the range of $175 million to $200 million annually. About 100 attorneys work in Taft’s Indianapolis office.

“When people say Taft is an out-of-state firm, we just laugh,” Hicks said. “The headquarters is where the nucleus of management is, and the nucleus of management is all over the place.” Senior management is in offices in Indianapolis and Cincinnati, but executive committee representatives come from all offices. With the acquisition of Shefsky, Taft will have offices in seven Midwestern markets plus Phoenix.

But Taft isn’t alone in recognizing the advantages of moving away from a headquarters structure. Ask where a firm is based, and you’re likely to hear something like this from Frost Brown Todd LLC Chairman John Crockett: “We don’t have a firm headquarters or a home office.”

Or this, from Faegre Baker Daniels LLP Chief Operating Partner Tom Froehle: “I don’t really think we saw a reason for a headquarters.

“We don’t have an office that has a majority of people, and we’ve got people in leadership in a number of offices,” he said. Like many firms, Faegre has invested heavily in telecommunications technology connecting its 14 locations. “We wanted to encourage people working across offices,” he added.

Froehle said that for firms based in New York or Los Angeles, for instance, it might be more advantageous to retain the cachet that comes with such an HQ address. But for firms where no particular market dominates, equity among offices is the trend.

Jeff Abrams, partner-in-charge of the Indianapolis office of Benesch Friedlander Coplan & Aronoff LLP, said the firm continues to seek merger opportunities in the Midwest, and that in doing so, realizes that where a firm originated will be less important than its vision for the future.

Like others, he said Benesch pulls its management team from all offices. While Cleveland has the greatest number of lawyers of any of the firm’s seven locations, “We still run things pretty much as a consensus and I don’t think there’s any emphasis on Cleveland people vs. Columbus people vs. Indianapolis people,” Abrams said.

“You want to be represented on the management level as well as in compensation.” Of firms moving away from a home office structure, Abrams added, “I think this is going to continue to happen around the country.”

Moving away from a headquarters structure also helps with recruiting, Abrams believes. “We want to send a message that coming to work in this office, in this city, is going to be just as important as coming to work in City A, B or C.”

Crockett said Frost Brown Todd’s executive committee meets monthly and the location rotates between offices. “We presently have nine offices in five states and we have what we believe is a collaborative, firm-first environment without regard to location.”

Froelich Froelich

As firms expand, Crockett believes there will be less attention to central locations. “It’s probably a trend we’re likely to see continue as long as law firms continue to merge and combine,” he said.

Law firms have combined this year at a record pace, according to legal consulting firm Altman Weil’s MergerLine. By the end of November, Altman Weil reported 78 law firm mergers were announced in 2013. The previous record for mergers and acquisitions had been 70 in 2008.

Hicks said Taft has invested heavily in technology that allows easy teleconferencing between offices, and the firm emphasizes face time with annual retreats attended by lawyers from all branches.

In a statement announcing the merger, Cezar “Cid” M. Froelich of Shefsky & Froelich praised the partnership.

“With this merger, we will strengthen our core practices, but we also will be able to provide many services and cover areas of expertise that we just couldn’t before with a firm of 70 lawyers,” Froelich said. “Best of all, we will not change our client service culture and we will maintain our direct relationships with them. Our respective firm cultures and internal structures align remarkably well. We will be able to provide our clients with all the benefits of a large firm, while maintaining our historical fee structure and client attentiveness of a midsized firm.”

Founded in 1970, Shefsky built a national reputation in gaming law, Hicks said. The firm’s litigation practice, appellate practice and corporate and real estate practices are outstanding, he added, often “fighting out of their weight class” against much larger firms in the market.

Hicks said under the Taft model, Shefsky’s current management team in Chicago will remain in place and the local office will have autonomy. Some of Shefsky’s executives will join Taft’s executive committee, and some key Shefsky personnel, including finance and IT personnel, will take on more regional or firm-wide roles.

Hicks and Taft managing partner Tom Terp from the Cincinnati office plan to spend a considerable amount of time in the Chicago office, but he stressed, “The local guys will manage the office. We’re not going to terminate any employees.”

Taft makes clear “how you’ll be rewarded for being successful,” Hicks said, based on incentives.

“Lawyers are pretty independent cats,” Hicks said. “We’re not a ‘We’re going to tell you what to do’ type of firm. We want everyone to succeed and we have a common compensation system that rewards people. … People want to chase a carrot at the end of a string rather than getting hit over the head with a stick.”

Hicks said the merger also aligns with Taft’s vision.

“Our goal is to have a substantial presence but stay in the Midwest and be in all the significant centers of the Midwest,” he said. “We want to have a Midwestern rate structure with the quality of one of the firms on the coasts.”•

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

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 Indiana Lawyer 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
2015 Distinguished Barrister &
Up and Coming Lawyer Reception

Tuesday, May 5, 2015 • 4:30 - 7:00 pm
Learn More


ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. The $320,000 is the amount the school spent in litigating two lawsuits: One to release the report involving John Trimble (as noted in the story above) and one defending the discrimination lawsuit. The story above does not mention the amount spent to defend the discrimination suit, that's why the numbers don't match. Thanks for reading.

  2. $160k? Yesterday the figure was $320k. Which is it Indiana Lawyer. And even more interesting, which well connected law firm got the (I am guessing) $320k, six time was the fired chancellor received. LOL. (From yesterday's story, which I guess we were expected to forget overnight ... "According to records obtained by the Journal & Courier, Purdue spent $161,812, beginning in July 2012, in a state open records lawsuit and $168,312, beginning in April 2013, for defense in a federal lawsuit. Much of those fees were spent battling court orders to release an independent investigation by attorney John Trimble that found Purdue could have handled the forced retirement better")

  3. The numbers are harsh; 66 - 24 in the House, 40 - 10 in the Senate. And it is an idea pushed by the Democrats. Dead end? Ummm not necessarily. Just need to go big rather than go home. Nuclear option. Give it to the federal courts, the federal courts will ram this down our throats. Like that other invented right of the modern age, feticide. Rights too precious to be held up by 2000 years of civilization hang in the balance. Onward!

  4. I'm currently seeing someone who has a charge of child pornography possession, he didn't know he had it because it was attached to a music video file he downloaded when he was 19/20 yrs old and fought it for years until he couldn't handle it and plead guilty of possession. He's been convicted in Illinois and now lives in Indiana. Wouldn't it be better to give them a chance to prove to the community and their families that they pose no threat? He's so young and now because he was being a kid and downloaded music at a younger age, he has to pay for it the rest of his life? It's unfair, he can't live a normal life, and has to live in fear of what people can say and do to him because of something that happened 10 years ago? No one deserves that, and no one deserves to be labeled for one mistake, he got labeled even though there was no intent to obtain and use the said content. It makes me so sad to see someone I love go through this and it makes me holds me back a lot because I don't know how people around me will accept him...second chances should be given to those under the age of 21 at least so they can be given a chance to live a normal life as a productive member of society.

  5. It's just an ill considered remark. The Sup Ct is inherently political, as it is a core part of government, and Marbury V Madison guaranteed that it would become ever more so Supremely thus. So her remark is meaningless and she just should have not made it.... what she could have said is that Congress is a bunch of lazys and cowards who wont do their jobs so the hard work of making laws clear, oftentimes stops with the Sups sorting things out that could have been resolved by more competent legislation. That would have been a more worthwhile remark and maybe would have had some relevance to what voters do, since voters cant affect who gets appointed to the supremely un-democratic art III courts.

ADVERTISEMENT