ILNews

IBA: Law Firm Mergers Hold Steady Nationally at Pre-Recession Pace

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

There were 14 law firm mergers and acquisitions announced in the United States in the first quarter of 2012, according to Altlman Weil. This continues the rebound of law firm combinations that began in the fall of 2010 and held through all of 2011.

“We’ve averaged about 15 mergers and acquisitions in each of the last six quarters,” said Altman Weil principal Eric Seeger. “The pace of merger activity is holding steady at pre-recession levels.”

Typically, there are one or two big law firm mergers announced in the first quarter of the year, as well as a spate of small acquisitions and combinations — and 2012 is no exception. There was one large law firm merger in the quarter, while the balance of reported combinations involved either the acquisition of a firm with 20 or fewer lawyers, or the merger of two small firms.

In January, Atlanta-based McKenna Long & Aldridge announced its intention to merge with California law firm Luce Forward Hamilton & Scripps. The merger, which was finalized in March, created a new firm of over 550 lawyers.

Five large law firms made geographic moves, expanding their footprints with small, strategic acquisitions. K&L Gates acquired Marini Salsi Picciau in Milan, giving the firm its first Italian office. Littler Mendelson moved into Memphis with the acquisition of labor and employment boutique Kiesewetter Wise Kaplan Prather. Jackson Lewis strengthened its position in Milwaukee by combining with Simandl & Prentice. Baker Donelson made its second acquisition in the hot Houston market, with Drucker Rutledge & Smith. And, Womble Carlyle added an office in the South Carolina capital by acquiring Hall & Bowers in Columbia.

Carroll Burdick & McDonough, a San Francisco-based firm with 72 lawyers, made the only other cross-border deal of the quarter. The firm combined with Schweiger & Partners, a 5-lawyer, intellectual property boutique with offices in Germany and Singapore.

“In this type of combination, the larger firm is able to acquire new client relationships in new markets and the smaller firm is able to execute a transition that works for the partners and their clients,” Seeger explained.

In addition to the 14 new law firm combinations announced between January and March 2012, there were eleven deals announced at the end of last year that were finalized in the first quarter. This is also typical of the annual pattern of merger activity.

There were several noteworthy deals in this category, including Bryan Cave’s acquisition of Holme Roberts & Owen to create a firm with over 1,000 lawyers; and the merger between Faegre & Benson, a 447-lawyer firm headquartered in Minneapolis, and 323-lawyer, Indianapolis firm Baker & Daniels.•

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
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  2. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

  3. Here's an idea...how about we MORE heavily regulate the law schools to reduce the surplus of graduates, driving starting salaries up for those new grads, so that we can all pay our insane amount of student loans off in a reasonable amount of time and then be able to afford to do pro bono & low-fee work? I've got friends in other industries, radiology for example, and their schools accept a very limited number of students so there will never be a glut of new grads and everyone's pay stays high. For example, my radiologist friend's school accepted just six new students per year.

  4. I totally agree with John Smith.

  5. An idea that would harm the public good which is protected by licensing. Might as well abolish doctor and health care professions licensing too. Ridiculous. Unrealistic. Would open the floodgates of mischief and abuse. Even veteranarians are licensed. How has deregulation served the public good in banking, for example? Enough ideology already!

ADVERTISEMENT