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. As one of the many consumers affected by this breach, I found my bank data had been lifted and used to buy over $200 of various merchandise in New York. I did a pretty good job of tracing the purchases to stores around a college campus just from the info on my bank statement. Hm. Mr. Hill, I would like my $200 back! It doesn't belong to the state, in my opinion. Give it back to the consumers affected. I had to freeze my credit and take out data protection, order a new debit card and wait until it arrived. I deserve something for my trouble!

  2. Don't we have bigger issues to concern ourselves with?

  3. Anyone who takes the time to study disciplinary and bar admission cases in Indiana ... much of which is, as a matter of course and by intent, off the record, would have a very difficult time drawing lines that did not take into account things which are not supposed to matter, such as affiliations, associations, associates and the like. Justice Hoosier style is a far departure than what issues in most other parts of North America. (More like Central America, in fact.) See, e.g., http://www.theindianalawyer.com/indiana-attorney-illegally-practicing-in-florida-suspended-for-18-months/PARAMS/article/42200 When while the Indiana court system end the cruel practice of killing prophets of due process and those advocating for blind justice?

  4. Wouldn't this call for an investigation of Government corruption? Chief Justice Loretta Rush, wrote that the case warranted the high court’s review because the method the Indiana Court of Appeals used to reach its decision was “a significant departure from the law.” Specifically, David wrote that the appellate panel ruled after reweighing of the evidence, which is NOT permissible at the appellate level. **But yet, they look the other way while an innocent child was taken by a loving mother who did nothing wrong"

  5. Different rules for different folks....

ADVERTISEMENT