Mergers down, but maybe not for long

January 5, 2011
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Altman Weil has released its annual roundup of law firm mergers for 2010, and despite the low number, the company believes more firms will merge this year.

There were just 39 law firm mergers or acquisitions announced in 2010, down from 53 in 2009 and 70 in 2008. According to Altman Weil’s stats, Indiana had only one merger – Dann Pecar Newman & Kleiman joined forces with Cleveland law firm Benesch Friedlander Coplan & Aronoff in March.

In 2009, Barnes & Thornburg acquired the Minneapolis firm Parsinen Law Firm, and Cleveland firm Hahn Loeser & Parks announced it was merging with Galbraith Associates in Indianapolis.

We saw a bit of merger mania in 2008 with four firms with ties to Indiana making moves – Bingham McHale merged with Indianapolis firm McTurnan & Turner; the name Locke Reynolds disappeared as it merged with Cincinnati-based firm Frost Brown Todd, as did Sommer Barnard as it merged with Taft Stettinius & Hollister, which is also based in Cincinnati. Two Indiana firms combined forces – Miner Lemon & Walston in Warsaw and the Stallwood Law Office in Indianapolis.

Altman Weil believes mergers will pick up this year because of the upswing in activity during the fourth quarter in 2010.

Of course, we hear the occasional grumblings of merger rumors involving Indiana firms, but no one will talk about them or the rumors don’t materialize. Care to make a prediction as to if, and how many, mergers we’ll see 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. 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