Another Ohio firm moves in

March 3, 2010
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
Let’s begin saying our goodbyes to the name Dann Pecar Newman & Kleiman because in about a year, it will be gone from Indianapolis. Dann Pecar is the latest Indiana firm to merge with an out-of-state firm and lose its name.

Indiana lost the monikers of Sommer Barnard and Locke Reynolds in the past two years after being acquired by Ohio firms. Now Dann Pecar will become Benesch/ Dann Pecar and then just Benesch Friedlander Coplan & Aronoff. Benesch is also based in Ohio.

This may be the first one of the year – or at least first one we’ve learned about – but my guess is this may not be the only merger we’ll see in the next year. Dann Pecar’s former managing partner told the Indianapolis Business Journal that the firm had been searching for a merger partner for several years and even had discussions with two firms based in Indianapolis. He didn’t name them or say where two other firms they spoke with were based.

Legal consultants Altman Weil expect to see an uptick in mergers this year because many deals were on hold pending 2009 year-end results. Mergers were down 24 percent in 2009 as compared to 2008. The Midwest saw nine mergers last year, including Barnes & Thornburgh’s acquisition of a Minneapolis firm, and Indianapolis firm Galbraith Associates’ merger with a larger Cleveland-based firm.

Care to guess whether Indiana will see any more mergers this year? Will those mergers happen with a firm not based in Ohio?
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. The fee increase would be livable except for the 11% increase in spending at the Disciplinary Commission. The Commission should be focused on true public harm rather than going on witch hunts against lawyers who dare to criticize judges.

  2. Marijuana is safer than alcohol. AT the time the 1937 Marijuana Tax Act was enacted all major pharmaceutical companies in the US sold marijuana products. 11 Presidents of the US have smoked marijuana. Smoking it does not increase the likelihood that you will get lung cancer. There are numerous reports of canabis oil killing many kinds of incurable cancer. (See Rick Simpson's Oil on the internet or facebook).

  3. The US has 5% of the world's population and 25% of the world's prisoners. Far too many people are sentenced for far too many years in prison. Many of the federal prisoners are sentenced for marijuana violations. Marijuana is safer than alcohol.

  4. My daughter was married less than a week and her new hubbys picture was on tv for drugs and now I havent't seen my granddaughters since st patricks day. when my daughter left her marriage from her childrens Father she lived with me with my grand daughters and that was ok but I called her on the new hubby who is in jail and said didn't want this around my grandkids not unreasonable request and I get shut out for her mistake

  5. From the perspective of a practicing attorney, it sounds like this masters degree in law for non-attorneys will be useless to anyone who gets it. "However, Ted Waggoner, chair of the ISBA’s Legal Education Conclave, sees the potential for the degree program to actually help attorneys do their jobs better. He pointed to his practice at Peterson Waggoner & Perkins LLP in Rochester and how some clients ask their attorneys to do work, such as filling out insurance forms, that they could do themselves. Waggoner believes the individuals with the legal master’s degrees could do the routine, mundane business thus freeing the lawyers to do the substantive legal work." That is simply insulting to suggest that someone with a masters degree would work in a role that is subpar to even an administrative assistant. Even someone with just a certificate or associate's degree in paralegal studies would be overqualified to sit around helping clients fill out forms. Anyone who has a business background that they think would be enhanced by having a legal background will just go to law school, or get an MBA (which typically includes a business law class that gives a generic, broad overview of legal concepts). No business-savvy person would ever seriously consider this ridiculous master of law for non-lawyers degree. It reeks of desperation. The only people I see getting it are the ones who did not get into law school, who see the degree as something to add to their transcript in hopes of getting into a JD program down the road.

ADVERTISEMENT