ILNews

Baker & Daniels, Faegre & Benson confirm merger

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Tom Froehle, chief executive partner for Baker & Daniels, and Andrew Humphrey, chair of Faegre & Benson’s management committee, held a joint news conference Oct. 12 to formally announce that the two firms will merge, effective Jan. 1, 2012. The new firm – Faegre Baker Daniels – will have 770 attorneys and 45 consultants in the United States and abroad, Humphrey said.

Humphrey will be the new firm’s managing partner, and Froehle will be chief operating partner.

“We quite intentionally view this combination as an opportunity to embrace a one-firm, cross-office approach,” Humphrey said. “We’ve intentionally decided that the combined firm will not have a headquarters location.”

Froehle said the firm had no plans to lay off lawyers or staff.

The consulting division of Baker & Daniels will become FaegreBD Consulting, with offices in Washington, D.C. The new firm creates a strong presence in the Midwest, with 13 offices across Indiana, Illinois, Minnesota, Iowa and Colorado. The firm will also have offices in Shanghai, Beijing and London. Baker & Daniels opened its Beijing office in 1998; Faegre & Benson has been in Shanghai since 2001.

“Some of you may know that within the legal press, there is a definition often used by the National Law Journal that defines a national firm as not having more than 50 percent of their lawyers in one office,” Humphrey said. Under that definition, Faegre Baker Daniels will be a national firm.

Baker & Daniels announced in August that it was in merger discussions with the Minneapolis-based firm. Faegre & Benson, founded in 1886, has represented Boston Scientific Corp., Novartis Pharmaceuticals, Wells Fargo and others. Baker & Daniels, founded in 1863, offers services in more than 35 practice areas and industries.
 

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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Family court judges never fail to surprise me with their irrational thinking. First of all any man who abuses his wife is not fit to be a parent. A man who can't control his anger should not be allowed around his child unsupervised period. Just because he's never been convicted of abusing his child doesn't mean he won't and maybe he hasn't but a man that has such poor judgement and control is not fit to parent without oversight - only a moron would think otherwise. Secondly, why should the mother have to pay? He's the one who made the poor decisions to abuse and he should be the one to pay the price - monetarily and otherwise. Yes it's sad that the little girl may be deprived of her father, but really what kind of father is he - the one that abuses her mother the one that can't even step up and do what's necessary on his own instead the abused mother is to pay for him???? What is this Judge thinking? Another example of how this world rewards bad behavior and punishes those who do right. Way to go Judge - NOT.

  2. Right on. Legalize it. We can take billions away from the drug cartels and help reduce violence in central America and more unwanted illegal immigration all in one fell swoop. cut taxes on the savings from needless incarcerations. On and stop eroding our fourth amendment freedom or whatever's left of it.

  3. "...a switch from crop production to hog production "does not constitute a significant change."??? REALLY?!?! Any judge that cannot see a significant difference between a plant and an animal needs to find another line of work.

  4. Why do so many lawyers get away with lying in court, Jamie Yoak?

  5. Future generations will be amazed that we prosecuted people for possessing a harmless plant. The New York Times came out in favor of legalization in Saturday's edition of the newspaper.

ADVERTISEMENT