Firm mergers & the economy

December 4, 2008
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
Looks like Locke Reynolds answered the question I posed in a blog from October.

Locke confirmed they are merging with Louisville-Cincinnati firm Frost Brown Todd and taking that firm’s name. This is the second merger a large Indianapolis firm has undertaken this year. In May, Sommer Barnard became Taft Stettinitus & Hollister.

Plus, the Indianapolis Business Journal has reported that Ice Miller is set to merge with Louisville firm Greenebaum Doll & McDonald. Which firm could be next?

Law firms in Indianapolis claim the economy isn’t that bad right now and they aren’t experiencing the issues that the big firms in larger cities like Chicago or New York are facing.

We hear about things happening at law firms – whether it’s staff layoffs, merger discussions, or trimming summer associate positions – but when we try to confirm these things with firms, we get a denial, a “no comment”, or no response at all. Firms have no problem calling us or reaching out to us when they want us to know about a new practice group they’ve created or that a partner has been selected for a committee with a charitable group.

Can the Indiana legal community still say that its not being affected by this current economy now that we’ve got at least two large firms that have merged with out-of-state firms this year? That’s not even taking into account the smaller firms around the state that have joined forces in the last year. Is our legal community in denial, or are these mergers not an indicator that Indiana’s legal community is struggling and firms are looking to remain indispensable?
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. Such things are no more elections than those in the late, unlamented Soviet Union.

  2. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  3. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  4. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  5. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

ADVERTISEMENT