ILNews

IndyBar: US Law Firms on Pace for Record Year

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

There were 18 law firm mergers and acquisitions announced in the United States in the second quarter of 2013, according to Altman Weil MergerLine. At the mid-year point, there have been 39 total mergers, putting 2013 on a potentially record–setting pace.

“The largest annual total for US law firm mergers was 70 in 2008,” according to Altman Weil principal Ward Bower. “If the pace continues, it looks like 2013 will surpass that record.”

The largest deal announced in the second quarter of 2013 was the combination of Husch Blackwell, a 543-lawyer law firm headquartered in St. Louis, and Brown McCarroll, a 65-lawyer Texas firm. Chicago-based global law firm Baker & McKenzie announced the only cross-border deal of the second quarter, acquiring 45-lawyer Habib Al Mulla in Dubai.

In other relatively sizeable combinations, 300-lawyer, Southern regional law firm Adams and Reese acquired Ellis Lawhorne, a 23-lawyer firm in Columbia, South Carolina; and 560-lawyer, Philadelphia-based Fox Rothschild added 16 lawyers in Denver with the acquisition of Lottner Rubin Fishman Saul.

The other 14 deals announced in April, May and June 2013 were acquisitions of small law firms with 10 lawyers or fewer.

“Typically, the majority of law firm combinations are acquisitions of small law firms, because subsequent integration is so much easier for a dominant acquirer,” said Bower.

In addition to the April, May and June law firm combinations, there were four deals announced at the end of last year that were finalized in the second quarter of 2013.

In April, SNR Denton concluded two mergers with Paris-based law firm Salans and with Canadian firm Fraser Milner Casgrain to create a new 2,500-lawyer, global firm renamed Dentons. In June, U.K.-based Norton Rose finalized its combination with 850-lawyer Fulbright & Jaworski, establishing a major U.S. presence through the merger.

The complete list of law firm mergers and acquisitions announced to date in 2013 as well as an archive from prior years and a six-year trend summary are available online at www.altmanweil.com/MergerLine.•

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. The practitioners and judges who hail E-filing as the Saviour of the West need to contain their respective excitements. E-filing is federal court requires the practitioner to cram his motion practice into pigeonholes created by IT people. Compound motions or those seeking alternative relief are effectively barred, unless the practitioner wants to receive a tart note from some functionary admonishing about the "problem". E-filing is just another method by which courts and judges transfer their burden to practitioners, who are the really the only powerless components of the system. Of COURSE it is easier for the court to require all of its imput to conform to certain formats, but this imposition does NOT improve the quality of the practice of law and does NOT improve the ability of the practitioner to advocate for his client or to fashion pleadings that exactly conform to his client's best interests. And we should be very wary of the disingenuous pablum about the costs. The courts will find a way to stick it to the practitioner. Lake County is a VERY good example of this rapaciousness. Any one who does not believe this is invited to review the various special fees that system imposes upon practitioners- as practitioners- and upon each case ON TOP of the court costs normal in every case manually filed. Jurisprudence according to Aldous Huxley.

  2. Any attorneys who practice in federal court should be able to say the same as I can ... efiling is great. I have been doing it in fed court since it started way back. Pacer has its drawbacks, but the ability to hit an e-docket and pull up anything and everything onscreen is a huge plus for a litigator, eps the sole practitioner, who lacks a filing clerk and the paralegal support of large firms. Were I an Indiana attorney I would welcome this great step forward.

  3. Can we get full disclosure on lobbyist's payments to legislatures such as Mr Buck? AS long as there are idiots that are disrespectful of neighbors and intent on shooting fireworks every night, some kind of regulations are needed.

  4. I am the mother of the child in this case. My silence on the matter was due to the fact that I filed, both in Illinois and Indiana, child support cases. I even filed supporting documentation with the Indiana family law court. Not sure whether this information was provided to the court of appeals or not. Wish the case was done before moving to Indiana, because no matter what, there is NO WAY the state of Illinois would have allowed an appeal on a child support case!

  5. "No one is safe when the Legislature is in session."

ADVERTISEMENT