Slow economy, fewer mergers

October 8, 2008
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
Here’s more proof that law firms are struggling in this economy: opportunities for mergers are lessening.

When I think of the economy worsening, I think law firms that are teetering on the brink of going under would try to find another firm to merge with as a way to save costs, combine efforts, and attract or keep clients.

But here’s an interesting observation from Altman Weil Mergerline, an online tracking service from the legal management consulting company Altman Weil, that didn’t cross my mind: the volatile economy we are currently experiencing is actually slowing mergers. So it seems, those firms who are struggling to stay afloat right now and may think merging with a stronger firm is the best way to keep the firm going may be surprised to find firms hunkering down and holding off on merging.

Despite the current slowdown, Altman Weil reports to date, 2008 has already seen 14 more mergers than in 2007, despite the fact third-quarter deals are down from last quarter.

According to Altman Weil, our state has already had three firm mergers this year: Sommer Barnard becoming Taft Stettinius & Hollister; Warsaw firm Miner Lemon & Walston merging with Indianapolis firm Stallwood Law Office; and McTurnan & Turner joining forces with Bingham McHale. In August, Indianapolis firm Coleman Stevenson announced it was merging with the Montel Law Firm of Carmel.

With the volatile economy, do you think Indiana will see any more mergers this year?
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
  1. Hail to our Constitutional Law Expert in the Executive Office! “What you’re not paying attention to is the fact that I just took an action to change the law,” Obama said.

  2. What is this, the Ind Supreme Court thinking that there is a separation of powers and limited enumerated powers as delegated by a dusty old document? Such eighteen century thinking, so rare and unwanted by the elites in this modern age. Dictate to us, dictate over us, the massess are chanting! George Soros agrees. Time to change with times Ind Supreme Court, says all President Snows. Rule by executive decree is the new black.

  3. I made the same argument before a commission of the Indiana Supreme Court and then to the fedeal district and federal appellate courts. Fell flat. So very glad to read that some judges still beleive that evidentiary foundations matter.

  4. KUDOS to the Indiana Supreme Court for realizing that some bureacracies need to go to the stake. Recall what RWR said: "No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size. Government programs, once launched, never disappear. Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we'll ever see on this earth!" NOW ... what next to this rare and inspiring chopping block? Well, the Commission on Gender and Race (but not religion!?!) is way overdue. And some other Board's could be cut with a positive for State and the reputation of the Indiana judiciary.

  5. During a visit where an informant with police wears audio and video, does the video necessary have to show hand to hand transaction of money and narcotics?

ADVERTISEMENT