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. I need an experienced attorney to handle a breach of contract matter. Kindly respond for more details. Graham Young

  2. I thought the slurs were the least grave aspects of her misconduct, since they had nothing to do with her being on the bench. Why then do I suspect they were the focus? I find this a troubling trend. At least she was allowed to keep her law license.

  3. Section 6 of Article I of the Indiana Constitution is pretty clear and unequivocal: "Section 6. No money shall be drawn from the treasury for the benefit of any religious or theological institution."

  4. Video pen? Nice work, "JW"! Let this be a lesson and a caution to all disgruntled ex-spouses (or soon-to-be ex-spouses) . . . you may think that altercation is going to get you some satisfaction . . . it will not.

  5. First comment on this thread is a fitting final comment on this thread, as that the MCBA never answered Duncan's fine question, and now even Eric Holder agrees that the MCBA was in material error as to the facts: "I don't get it" from Duncan December 1, 2014 5:10 PM "The Grand Jury met for 25 days and heard 70 hours of testimony according to this article and they made a decision that no crime occurred. On what basis does the MCBA conclude that their decision was "unjust"? What special knowledge or evidence does the MCBA have that the Grand Jury hearing this matter was unaware of? The system that we as lawyers are sworn to uphold made a decision that there was insufficient proof that officer committed a crime. How can any of us say we know better what was right than the jury that actually heard all of the the evidence in this case."

ADVERTISEMENT