Mergers down, but maybe not for long

January 5, 2011
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrint

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.

ADVANCED SEARCH
Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT

  1. Interesting that the new laws in criminal code all involve voter fraud

  2. I'm getting divorced and we have prenuptial and judge said it stands even though he made me sign it 2 days before wedding then I be c ame ill and left with nothing butbills

  3. No irony here, John. Conour’s clients are wise to him. Evidently you’ve missed discovery that disclosed Conour was aware he was caught with his hand in the cookie jar, actually many cookie jars, but continued to spend any monies he secured on himself and his lifestyle. Your theory is idealistic and assumes Conour has the soul of a good attorney and therefore he would take care of his clients. Conour has no soul. He greedily took awarded settlements from his disabled clients and spent it on his own edacious desires. You are naïve to think if he kept working he would put his fees into a restitution fund. He is who he is and has proven he will use any means to cheat and manipulate those who trust him and the judicial system that is supposed to protect them. Sorry John, you don’t send the fox back into the hen house after he’s caught devouring the hens. Conour can’t be trusted. He has no more honor than that fox.

  4. The court of appeals not only tries to rewrite or interpret the law to suit their fancy, now they choose play stupid as well. Every consideration must be given to pro se litigants, who are not held to the same standards as attorneys, as stated by,SCOTUS. I assume they didn't have a lawyer, since one wasn't mentioned and I strongly suggest thatb the rest of the, origional petitioners get back in there and fight for their rights.

  5. the irony of situations like this is that the clients whom conour cheated are the ones who should be pulling hardest for him to remain free and keep his law license, so they have some hopes of him paying back. really bury the guy deep and then there will be little hope of restitution

ADVERTISEMENT