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. 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