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. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

  2. Seventh Circuit Court Judge Diane Wood has stated in “The Rule of Law in Times of Stress” (2003), “that neither laws nor the procedures used to create or implement them should be secret; and . . . the laws must not be arbitrary.” According to the American Bar Association, Wood’s quote drives home this point: The rule of law also requires that people can expect predictable results from the legal system; this is what Judge Wood implies when she says that “the laws must not be arbitrary.” Predictable results mean that people who act in the same way can expect the law to treat them in the same way. If similar actions do not produce similar legal outcomes, people cannot use the law to guide their actions, and a “rule of law” does not exist.

  3. Linda, I sure hope you are not seeking a law license, for such eighteenth century sentiments could result in your denial in some jurisdictions minting attorneys for our tolerant and inclusive profession.

  4. Mazel Tov to the newlyweds. And to those bakers, photographers, printers, clerks, judges and others who will lose careers and social standing for not saluting the New World (Dis)Order, we can all direct our Two Minutes of Hate as Big Brother asks of us. Progress! Onward!

  5. My daughter was taken from my home at the end of June/2014. I said I would sign the safety plan but my husband would not. My husband said he would leave the house so my daughter could stay with me but the case worker said no her mind is made up she is taking my daughter. My daughter went to a friends and then the friend filed a restraining order which she was told by dcs if she did not then they would take my daughter away from her. The restraining order was not in effect until we were to go to court. Eventually it was dropped but for 2 months DCS refused to allow me to have any contact and was using the restraining order as the reason but it was not in effect. This was Dcs violating my rights. Please help me I don't have the money for an attorney. Can anyone take this case Pro Bono?

ADVERTISEMENT