Firm restructures for growth

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Bingham Greenebaum Doll LLP managing partner Tobin McClamroch is upfront about the direction he sees for the law firm, and he’s got a new leadership structure to help get there.

“We have a significant amount of confidence and momentum right now, and we anticipate significant expansion inside narrowly focused strategic initiatives,” McClamroch said. “We expect significant growth in 2014-2015, and most of that will be acquisition of laterals and smaller firms.”

apb-tobinmcclamroch02-15col.jpg Bingham Greenebaum Doll LLP managing partner Tobin McClamroch’s three-year term begins as the firm also has streamlined its management team. “It’s critical that law firms in today’s world be more nimble and structured for change and quick change,” he says. (IL Photo/Aaron P. Bernstein)

McClamroch was named managing partner Feb. 28 at Indianapolis’ fifth-largest law firm based on number of local lawyers, according to the Indianapolis Business Journal’s 2013 list of largest Indianapolis-area law firms. He began his three-year term as BGD also restructured the management team in a way he said will set the table for continued growth and possible mergers.

McClamroch explained that the prior structure had ensured representation of legacy firms and their business practices from the 2012 merger of Bingham McHale and Louisville-based Greenebaum Doll McDonald.

“We’ve done that, and now we’re a fully integrated firm,” he said. “We were very successful in 2013. We had a great year financially, and it’s time for us to look to the future.” While McClamroch declined to disclose 2013 earnings, he said the firm exceeded its revenue budget by more than 11 percent and increased revenues and profits per capital partner.

Going forward, McClamroch will report directly to a six-member partnership board rather than a much larger executive committee as had previous managing partners. McClamroch said the firm devoted extensive study to firm management

structures, and the model BGD chose is more akin to those of the companies it represents.

McClamroch believes the new structure reflects the direction law firm governance appears headed.

froehle Froehle

“It’s critical that law firms in today’s world be more nimble and structured for change and quick change” in order to make decisions and adjust to evolving circumstances, he said. BGD’s growth this year and next is likely to come in the firm’s corporate, business litigation and health care practices, he added.

Some of that expansion is likely to come from lateral hires or acquisitions of small firms, but McClamroch said there’s no reason to believe larger firms won’t continue to look for merger opportunities.

“The market for business law firms is not getting bigger, so in order to compete and take market share, I think more and more firms will continue to merge,” he said.

That’s a view shared by other leaders of some of Indianapolis’ largest law firms.

“I expect we will continue to see mergers in some form,” said Faegre Baker Daniels LLP chief operating partner Thomas Froehle. He said the firm, the second-largest in Indianapolis, doesn’t have any pending combinations but continues to grow through lateral hiring and expansion such as the opening of a Silicon Valley office last year.

Like BGD, FaegreBD’s leadership structure was changed after a 2012 merger between legacy firms Baker & Daniels and Faegre & Benson. After the merger, FaegreBD posted revenue for the year of $443 million, according to American Lawyer. A 15-member management board elected at-large from partners firm wide sets policy and strategic direction while a four-member executive committee handles day-to-day and operational management.

horn-brenda.jpg Horn

“While our structure allows us to respond quickly, we view a law firm merger as a very significant transaction and would not expect to enter into a merger precipitously,” Froehle said.

“We are periodically approached about potential mergers or significant expansions in new locations. Typically, our executive committee, with support from our operations executives, reviews those opportunities and fairly quickly assesses whether such opportunity warrants further review by the full management board,” he said.

FaegreBD also instituted an operations executive team consisting of chief financial, information, knowledge management, marketing, strategy and talent officers who are experts in their fields but by design do not practice law and instead focus on client service.

“This structure has worked well for us, and we don’t have any immediate plans to revise it,” Froehle said.

Ice Miller LLP deputy managing partner Brenda Horn said the firm, Indianapolis’ third-largest, has a built-in review cycle for its governance. “Although our current structure has been very effective, we are continually evaluating ways to improve on that success,” Horn said.

The firm also went through a merger in 2012, adding 90 lawyers from Columbus, Ohio-based Schottenstein Zox & Dunn. Horn said a more nimble, streamlined management structure put in place seven years ago was “designed to increase our ability to assess opportunities and respond to changes in the marketplace.” Horn is one of three deputy partners at Ice Miller who, with chief managing partner Phillip Bayt, direct and implement strategic objectives.

“We were able to strike the (2012 merger) deal in a relatively short time frame but, more importantly, we have been able to maximize our ability to work across our expanded platform almost immediately,” Horn said. “This experience confirmed to us that the Ice Miller management structure was well-suited for a regional law firm and could continue to serve our needs as we grow.”

williams Williams

Managing partner Mike Williams leads Krieg DeVault LLP’s executive committee that in recent years has increased from three to four partners. He believes a firm’s organizational structure has little to do with its ability to lure potential merger partners.

“I don’t know that size (of a firm’s governing body) makes a huge difference on this. In most firms, those types of things require full partner votes anyway,” said Williams, who leads Indianapolis’ fourth-largest firm based on attorneys in the market.

Williams said he’s not sure he would expect to see more mergers anytime soon, but he does expect larger firms will continue to grow to their strengths through lateral moves.

“Our goal, I think, is to continue to grow and continue to be known as a progressive firm with a good work environment,” he said. “We look for growth opportunities in any number of areas.”

BGD’s McClamroch said that while the firm’s management has been streamlined, it continues to represent various locations where Bingham does business. “It’s important to have balance among different offices in a law firm no matter how the structure is set up, and we do have a good balance,” he said.

A spokesman for Barnes & Thornburg LLP, the city’s largest firm, said managing partner Alan Levin declined to comment for this article.•


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. I think the cops are doing a great job locking up criminals. The Murder rates in the inner cities are skyrocketing and you think that too any people are being incarcerated. Maybe we need to lock up more of them. We have the ACLU, BLM, NAACP, Civil right Division of the DOJ, the innocent Project etc. We have court system with an appeal process that can go on for years, with attorneys supplied by the government. I'm confused as to how that translates into the idea that the defendants are not being represented properly. Maybe the attorneys need to do more Pro-Bono work

  2. We do not have 10% of our population (which would mean about 32 million) incarcerated. It's closer to 2%.

  3. If a class action suit or other manner of retribution is possible, count me in. I have email and voicemail from the man. He colluded with opposing counsel, I am certain. My case was damaged so severely it nearly lost me everything and I am still paying dearly.

  4. There's probably a lot of blame that can be cast around for Indiana Tech's abysmal bar passage rate this last February. The folks who decided that Indiana, a state with roughly 16,000 to 18,000 attorneys, needs a fifth law school need to question the motives that drove their support of this project. Others, who have been "strong supporters" of the law school, should likewise ask themselves why they believe this institution should be supported. Is it because it fills some real need in the state? Or is it, instead, nothing more than a resume builder for those who teach there part-time? And others who make excuses for the students' poor performance, especially those who offer nothing more than conspiracy theories to back up their claims--who are they helping? What evidence do they have to support their posturing? Ultimately, though, like most everything in life, whether one succeeds or fails is entirely within one's own hands. At least one student from Indiana Tech proved this when he/she took and passed the February bar. A second Indiana Tech student proved this when they took the bar in another state and passed. As for the remaining 9 who took the bar and didn't pass (apparently, one of the students successfully appealed his/her original score), it's now up to them (and nobody else) to ensure that they pass on their second attempt. These folks should feel no shame; many currently successful practicing attorneys failed the bar exam on their first try. These same attorneys picked themselves up, dusted themselves off, and got back to the rigorous study needed to ensure they would pass on their second go 'round. This is what the Indiana Tech students who didn't pass the first time need to do. Of course, none of this answers such questions as whether Indiana Tech should be accredited by the ABA, whether the school should keep its doors open, or, most importantly, whether it should have even opened its doors in the first place. Those who promoted the idea of a fifth law school in Indiana need to do a lot of soul-searching regarding their decisions. These same people should never be allowed, again, to have a say about the future of legal education in this state or anywhere else. Indiana already has four law schools. That's probably one more than it really needs. But it's more than enough.

  5. This man Steve Hubbard goes on any online post or forum he can find and tries to push his company. He said court reporters would be obsolete a few years ago, yet here we are. How does he have time to search out every single post about court reporters and even spy in private court reporting forums if his company is so successful???? Dude, get a life. And back to what this post was about, I agree that some national firms cause a huge problem.