Bamberger merger is Indiana’s first in 2017

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share


bamberger-hulman-building-exterior-angle-15col.jpg The art deco-designed Hulman Building in Evansville has been home to Bamberger since 1959. Attorneys will relocate after the merger. (Photos courtesy of Bamberger Foreman Oswald & Hahn LLP )

In the first merger involving an Indiana firm in 2017, Evansville-based Bamberger Foreman Oswald & Hahn LLP will provide a stronger foothold in the Hoosier state to a Kentucky regional law practice and, in return, will gain a deeper bench of expertise to serve its clients.

Bamberger’s merger with Stoll Keenon Ogden PLLC, which is headquartered in Kentucky, was announced June 27, just before the end of the second quarter. The Bamberger name will disappear when the merger is completed — expected be in place by Sept. 1 — and the office will move from the Hulman Building in downtown Evansville where it has resided since the four founding partners opened the firm in 1959.


Operating as Stoll Keenon Ogden, the merged firm will have 144 attorneys with offices in Evansville and Indianapolis; Louisville, Lexington and Frankfort, Kentucky; and Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. The 10 Bamberger attorneys in Evansville will relocate to the SKO office in the Old National Bank headquarters to create an office of 17 lawyers.

Along with all the Bamberger attorneys, most of the office staff will be transitioning to the new firm. For the handful of support staff that will be losing their jobs, Christopher Wischer, partner at Bamberger, said his firm is working to help them find other employment.

The merger with SKO, Wischer said, will bring a competitive advantage as Bamberger’s present clients are growing and increasingly needing a broader scope of legal services. With more attorneys and practice areas, the merged firm will have greater resources and be able to offer assistance with legal issues in areas that Bamberger does not now have the expertise to provide.

Wischer said Bamberger has a solid practice and, with a projected revenue of $6.5 million in 2017, did not need to merge with a bigger firm. It was not actively looking to combine with another firm but it was considering how to position itself in a changing market. Conversations with SKO led to merger negotiations starting in March.

“We could continue and we’d be fine,” Wischer said of the Bamberger firm, “but this makes us better.”

Barr Barr

SKO managing director P. Douglas Barr declined to discuss his firm’s financials but did note he expects the merger to bolster revenue. Echoing Wischer, Barr said the addition of Bamberger will enable his firm to offer a more diversified range of services to its Evansville clients, particularly those in the coal, oil and gas sector who operate in the Illinois basin.

Tracing its roots to the small practice Richard Stoll started in Lexington, Kentucky, in 1897, SKO is well-established in the Bluegrass State. Its clients include Lexmark, Kentucky American Water Co. and Kentucky Utilities Co., along with Brown-Forman Corp.

The Kentucky firm already had a presence in Indiana before it shook hands with Bamberger. In 2013, SKO moved its Henderson, Kentucky, office across the Ohio River to Evansville and 35 of its attorneys are licensed to practice in the Hoosier state. It has clients in Indianapolis and Bamberger’s office in the Circle City gives SKO a brick-and-mortar presence in the state’s capital.

Barr especially pointed to the compatibility between SKO and Bamberger. He described Bamberger as being a perfect fit with his firm’s culture of hard-working attorneys who love to practice law.

“We feel like we’re lucky to find the group of lawyers at Bamberger,” Barr said. “They are really good people and good lawyers.”

Big splash

The merger between Bamberger and SKO is the first in Indiana since another Evansville firm, Rhine Ernest LLP was acquired by Bingham Greenebaum Doll LLP in August 2016.

Altman Weil, a provider of management consulting services to law firms, has charted a dramatic upward swing in law firm combinations since the end of the Great Recession. Mergers swelled from 60 in both 2011 and 2012 to a high of 91 in 2015 before a slight drop to 85 in 2016. The pace appears to be hastening with 52 firms merging in the opening two quarters of 2017.

Small-firm acquisitions have been driving the trend. In an analysis of mergers from 2007 through 2016, Altman Weil found more than 75 percent of all combinations have involved firms with two to 20 attorneys. Data from the second quarter of 2017 shows that 71 percent of the combinations involved small firms with 20 or fewer lawyers that were primarily located in the Midwest and Southern states.

According to Altman Weil, the gobbling up of small practices is a quick, low-risk way to gain market share as demand continues to contract. The consulting company anticipates small firms will remain targets for the foreseeable future.

Legal consultant Robert Henderson of RJH Consulting, based in Wyoming, expects SKO to keep expanding its Indiana footprint. An attorney with 10 years of firm management experience, Henderson has been a law firm consultant for more than two decades, concentrating on helping small and mid-size firms.

The “big prize” in the Bamberger merger was the Indianapolis office, he said. Coming into the Circle City, the Kentucky firm will make a big splash, spending the money on events like dinners and open houses to lure both clients and lateral hires, he said. It’s possible SKO may swallow another small firm whole.

Both Wischer and Barr confirmed that expansion through hiring more attorneys and acquiring other practices is part of their plan. Wischer said the Indianapolis office will likely be integral to the merged firm’s growth strategy. He anticipates the new firm will be in a better position to attract talent and clients.

Mutual benefits

Henderson is surprised the Bamberger name was not incorporated into the new firm, particularly since that moniker is known in Indiana and could have made the introduction of SKO to a wider Hoosier audience easier. He speculated the name was discussed as part of the merger negotiations along with hourly rates, governance of the merged firm and partner compensation.

Wischer Wischer

Small firms, Henderson said, can have difficulty competing in today’s legal market. In particular, they have to provide a range of services to clients who are less loyal and more willing to take their business to another firm.

Mergers can help retain clients by reducing the opportunities for other firms to poach them. Firms that cover many practice areas could become a one-stop-shop so their clients would not need to seek advice from attorneys at other law offices and risk being lured away.

Wischer said merging with another Indiana-based firm would not have brought the mutual benefits the combination with SKO is bringing. For Bamberger clients, the merger gives them more legal resources inside as well as outside the state.

“It’s been an exciting time,” Wischer said. “I’m looking forward to getting over there (in the new office) and getting settled and getting to work.”•


Post a comment to this story

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
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. He TIL team,please zap this comment too since it was merely marking a scammer and not reflecting on the story. Thanks, happy Monday, keep up the fine work.

  2. You just need my social security number sent to your Gmail account to process then loan, right? Beware scammers indeed.

  3. The appellate court just said doctors can be sued for reporting child abuse. The most dangerous form of child abuse with the highest mortality rate of any form of child abuse (between 6% and 9% according to the below listed studies). Now doctors will be far less likely to report this form of dangerous child abuse in Indiana. If you want to know what this is, google the names Lacey Spears, Julie Conley (and look at what happened when uninformed judges returned that child against medical advice), Hope Ybarra, and Dixie Blanchard. Here is some really good reporting on what this allegation was: Here are the two research papers: 25% of sibling are dead in that second study. 25%!!! Unbelievable ruling. Chilling. Wrong.

  4. Mr. Levin says that the BMV engaged in misconduct--that the BMV (or, rather, someone in the BMV) knew Indiana motorists were being overcharged fees but did nothing to correct the situation. Such misconduct, whether engaged in by one individual or by a group, is called theft (defined as knowingly or intentionally exerting unauthorized control over the property of another person with the intent to deprive the other person of the property's value or use). Theft is a crime in Indiana (as it still is in most of the civilized world). One wonders, then, why there have been no criminal prosecutions of BMV officials for this theft? Government misconduct doesn't occur in a vacuum. An individual who works for or oversees a government agency is responsible for the misconduct. In this instance, somebody (or somebodies) with the BMV, at some time, knew Indiana motorists were being overcharged. What's more, this person (or these people), even after having the error of their ways pointed out to them, did nothing to fix the problem. Instead, the overcharges continued. Thus, the taxpayers of Indiana are also on the hook for the millions of dollars in attorneys fees (for both sides; the BMV didn't see fit to avail itself of the services of a lawyer employed by the state government) that had to be spent in order to finally convince the BMV that stealing money from Indiana motorists was a bad thing. Given that the BMV official(s) responsible for this crime continued their misconduct, covered it up, and never did anything until the agency reached an agreeable settlement, it seems the statute of limitations for prosecuting these folks has not yet run. I hope our Attorney General is paying attention to this fiasco and is seriously considering prosecution. Indiana, the state that works . . . for thieves.

  5. I'm glad that attorney Carl Hayes, who represented the BMV in this case, is able to say that his client "is pleased to have resolved the issue". Everyone makes mistakes, even bureaucratic behemoths like Indiana's BMV. So to some extent we need to be forgiving of such mistakes. But when those mistakes are going to cost Indiana taxpayers millions of dollars to rectify (because neither plaintiff's counsel nor Mr. Hayes gave freely of their services, and the BMV, being a state-funded agency, relies on taxpayer dollars to pay these attorneys their fees), the agency doesn't have a right to feel "pleased to have resolved the issue". One is left wondering why the BMV feels so pleased with this resolution? The magnitude of the agency's overcharges might suggest to some that, perhaps, these errors were more than mere oversight. Could this be why the agency is so "pleased" with this resolution? Will Indiana motorists ever be assured that the culture of incompetence (if not worse) that the BMV seems to have fostered is no longer the status quo? Or will even more "overcharges" and lawsuits result? It's fairly obvious who is really "pleased to have resolved the issue", and it's not Indiana's taxpayers who are on the hook for the legal fees generated in these cases.