ILNews

Baker & Daniels in talks to merge with Minneapolis firm

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Baker & Daniels LLP, one of Indianapolis' largest and oldest law firms, is in merger discussions with a Minneapolis law firm and hopes to complete a deal in October.

Tom Froehle, managing partner of Baker & Daniels, said he announced to partners on Thursday that the firm is in talks with Faegre & Benson LLP.

With 221 local attorneys, Baker & Daniels is the Indianapolis area's second-largest law firm behind Barnes & Thornburg LLP, which has 228 attorneys. Overall, it boasts 308 lawyers in seven locations, including Chicago; Washington, D.C.; and Beijing.

A merger with the 500-lawyer Faegre & Benson would create the largest law-firm combination involving an Indianapolis firm. More importantly, it gives Baker & Daniels a larger regional presence and greater access to more work.

“As the world gets more complicated and specialized, it really takes more breadth and depth of expertise to serve clients,” Froehle said. “We really think this is an opportunity to capitalize on that concept.”

The combined firm would have 13 offices. Besides Minneapolis, Faegre & Benson has Colorado locations in Boulder and Denver. It also has an office in Des Moines, Iowa, as well as international outposts in London and Shanghai. Where the merged firm will be headquartered has not been determined, Froehle said.

The Baker & Daniels name, which has stood since 1889, likely would change to reflect a combination of the firms, Froehle said. The firm was founded as Hendricks & Hord in 1863.

Baker & Daniels’ leadership had been searching for a partner the past few years before deciding on Faegre & Benson.

“Both have quality practices and there’s no overlapping of geography,” Froehle said. “We want to give this thorough analysis and careful consideration to do what’s best for our clients and people.”

Baker & Daniels saw revenue rise nearly 6 percent in 2010, to $152.5 million, while profit per partner increased 2 percent, to $520,000, according to The American Lawyer trade publication. The firm had 119 partners at the start of 2011, according to Indianapolis Business Journal research. The IBJ is the sister publication of Indiana Lawyer. Faegre & Benson’s revenue, meanwhile, declined nearly 10 percent last year, to $256.5 million, but profit per partner increased 5 percent, to $530,000. The firm has 203 partners.

Baker & Daniels is a full-service law firm with strong corporate, litigation, bankruptcy and real estate practices. Its high-profile local corporate clients include Eli Lilly and Co., WellPoint Inc., Clarian Health and Simon Property Group Inc.

If the merger is completed, it would be one of the largest law firm mergers in the United States this year, trailing only Chicago-based DLA Piper’s (3,448 attorneys) acquisition of affiliate DLA Phillips Fox (600 lawyers) in Australia, according to the Altman Weil Inc. consultancy in suburban Philadelphia.

The trend of mid-size firms growing through mergers or acquisitions has picked up steam in Indianapolis in the past few years.

In 2008, Sommer Barnard PC became part of Cincinnati-based Taft Stettinius Hollister LLP. Later that year, Locke Reynolds LLP hooked up with Frost Brown Todd LLC, also in Cincinnati.

And, last year, Dann Pecar Newman & Kleiman PC became part of Cleveland-based Benesch Friedlander Coplan & Aronoff LLP.

Having a regional presence has benefited the former Sommer Barnard, said Robert Hicks, managing partner of the Indianapolis Taft office.

“For us, our daily life has not changed at all,” he said. “We’re still the same culture. It’s just that we have a much bigger, broader tool box, and we love it.”

Nationwide, the number of law firm mergers and acquisitions increased in the first six months of the year compared with the same period in 2010. Through June, 28 deals had been completed, a 47-percent increase from the first half of last year, according to Altman Weil.



 
 

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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. @ President Snow, like they really read these comments or have the GUTS to show what is the right thing to do. They are just worrying about planning the next retirement party, the others JUST DO NOT CARE about what is right. Its the Good Ol'Boys - they do not care about the rights of the mother or child, they just care about their next vote, which, from what I gather, the mother left the state of Indiana because of the domestic violence that was going on through out the marriage, the father had three restraining orders on him from three different women, but yet, the COA judges sent a strong message, go ahead men put your women in place, do what you have to do, you have our backs... I just wish the REAL truth could be told about this situation... Please pray for this child and mother that God will some how make things right and send a miracle from above.

  2. I hear you.... Us Christians are the minority. The LGBTs groups have more rights than the Christians..... How come when we express our faith openly in public we are prosecuted? This justice system do not want to seem "bias" but yet forgets who have voted them into office.

  3. Perhaps the lady chief justice, or lady appellate court chief judge, or one of the many female federal court judges in Ind could lead this discussion of gender disparity? THINK WITH ME .... any real examples of race or gender bias reported on this ezine? But think about ADA cases ... hmmmm ... could it be that the ISC actually needs to tighten its ADA function instead? Let's ask me or Attorney Straw. And how about religion? Remember it, it used to be right up there with race, and actually more protected than gender. Used to be. Patrick J Buchanan observes: " After World War II, our judicial dictatorship began a purge of public manifestations of the “Christian nation” Harry Truman said we were. In 2009, Barack Obama retorted, “We do not consider ourselves to be a Christian nation.” Secularism had been enthroned as our established religion, with only the most feeble of protests." http://www.wnd.com/2017/02/is-secession-a-solution-to-cultural-war/#q3yVdhxDVMMxiCmy.99 I could link to any of my supreme court filings here, but have done that more than enough. My case is an exclamation mark on what PJB writes. BUT not in ISC, where the progressives obsess on race and gender .... despite a lack of predicate acts in the past decade. Interested in reading more on this subject? Search for "Florida" on this ezine.

  4. Great questions to six jurists. The legislature should open a probe to investigate possible government corruption. Cj rush has shown courage as has justice Steven David. Who stands with them?

  5. The is an unsigned editorial masquerading as a news story. Almost everyone quoted was biased in favor of letting all illegal immigrants remain in the U.S. (Ignoring that Obama deported 3.5 million in 8 years). For some reason Obama enforcing part of the immigration laws was O.K. but Trump enforcing additional parts is terrible. I have listed to press conferences and explanations of the Homeland Security memos and I gather from them that less than 1 million will be targeted for deportation, the "dreamers" will be left alone and illegals arriving in the last two years -- especially those arriving very recently -- will be subject to deportation but after the criminals. This will not substantially affect the GDP negatively, especially as it will take place over a number of years. I personally think this is a rational approach to the illegal immigration problem. It may cause Congress to finally pass new immigration laws rationalizing the whole immigration situation.

ADVERTISEMENT