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. I'm not sure what's more depressing: the fact that people would pay $35,000 per year to attend an unaccredited law school, or the fact that the same people "are hanging in there and willing to follow the dean’s lead in going forward" after the same school fails to gain accreditation, rendering their $70,000 and counting education worthless. Maybe it's a good thing these people can't sit for the bar.

  2. Such is not uncommon on law school startups. Students and faculty should tap Bruce Green, city attorney of Lufkin, Texas. He led a group of studnets and faculty and sued the ABA as a law student. He knows the ropes, has advised other law school startups. Very astute and principled attorney of unpopular clients, at least in his past, before Lufkin tapped him to run their show.

  3. Not that having the appellate records on Odyssey won't be welcome or useful, but I would rather they first bring in the stray counties that aren't yet connected on the trial court level.

  4. Aristotle said 350 bc: "The most hated sort, and with the greatest reason, is usury, which makes a gain out of money itself, and not from the natural object of it. For money was intended to be used in exchange, but not to increase at interest. And this term interest, which means the birth of money from money, is applied to the breeding of money because the offspring resembles the parent. Wherefore of an modes of getting wealth this is the most unnatural.

  5. Oh yes, lifetime tenure. The Founders gave that to the federal judges .... at that time no federal district courts existed .... so we are talking the Supreme Court justices only in context ....so that they could rule against traditional marriage and for the other pet projects of the sixties generation. Right. Hmmmm, but I must admit, there is something from that time frame that seems to recommend itself in this context ..... on yes, from a document the Founders penned in 1776: " He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good."

ADVERTISEMENT