ILNews

Firm mergers at highest number since 2009

IL Staff
April 4, 2013
Keywords
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

U.S. law firm mergers in the first quarter of this year hit a four-year high, Altman Weil Inc. announced Thursday. Twenty-one firms announced mergers and acquisitions, with most deals involving acquisitions of small law firms.

No Indiana-based firms made any combination moves so far this year based on data from Altman Weil.

“U.S. law firms continue to grow, primarily through targeted acquisitions,” Altman Weil principal Ward Bower said in a release. “Firms are picking up specialty practices, expanding in strong markets and adding offices in new cities.”

Two Detroit-based firms announced mergers with firms in Pittsburgh and Phoenix. The combinations were spread across the country and included seven multi-regional combinations.

There were also seven law firm mergers and acquisitions announced at the end of last year that were finalized in the first quarter of 2013. For comparison, there were 14 law firm mergers and acquisitions announced in the first quarter of 2012 and 11 reported at the end of 2011 that took effect in the 2012 first quarter. Those included five Indiana-based firms: Ice Miller LLP, which merged with Columbus, Ohio-based Schottenstein Zox & Dunn; Bingham McHale, which merged with Louisville-based Greenebaum Doll & McDonald to become Bingham Greenebaum Doll LLP; Evansville firm Kahn Dees Donovan & Kahn, which merged with Evansville firm Lavallo & Frank; and Baker & Daniels, which became Faegre Baker Daniels LLP after merging with Minneapolis-based Faegre & Benson.

 

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