Mergers increase following dry spell

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Legal management consulting firm Altman Weil reports that through September 2011, law firm mergers nationwide are up 79 percent compared to last year.

According to the firm’s “MergerLine” statistics, among the 46 mergers announced by Oct. 3, 19 were cross-state partnerships. Ice Miller’s merger with Columbus, Ohio-based Schottenstein Zox & Dunn is one such union. One week before the Ice Miller announcement, rumors were confirmed that Baker & Daniels has been discussing a merger with Minneapolis-based Faegre & Benson. While some people may be wondering if Indianapolis has merger fever, it’s more likely that what’s happening locally, and nationally, has been in the works for a while.

altonji-joe-mug.jpg Altonji

Joseph B. Altonji, principal founder of the Chicago-based firm management company LawVision, explained that mergers – from the time conversations between two firms begin until the deal is complete – take time.

“When we had the initial skid in mergers – when everything went crazy at the end of 2008 – basically everything that was going on back then got put on hold,” Altonji said. During 2009, merger activity idled before picking back up in 2010.

“I think if you are sitting in the category of multiple years of weak performance, you start to have to think about: what’s our future? How are we going to change this course?” Altonji said. And the answer to that question, for some firms, is to expand their reach through a merger.

The urge to merge

Carole Silver, professor at Indiana University Maurer School of Law, said that sometimes the impetus for merger is when a firm realizes it has grown as much as it can in a geographic area, and it wants to reach other markets.

She said firms might try to expand their client base by sending a trusted lawyer from their office to another location, with instructions to find new clients and build the satellite office one lawyer at a time.

silver-carole-mug.jpg Silver

“But that’s slow, and it’s risky,” Silver said. “More often, a client will say: we have business in location X, would you please send a lawyer to location X?”

Without contacts and resources in “location X,” a firm may find that what makes more sense is to attempt to merge with a firm that already has connections and clients in the target geographic area. Firms may also be looking to expand their catalog of services, by courting small firms with specialty practices.

“We’re in a market today where the total volume of legal services needed really hasn’t been growing since the recession,” Altonji said. “The only way you can grow is by acquiring market share.”

Altonji said that firms may have trouble expanding their talent pool in one geographic area without running into conflicts, and that’s why firms may need to look across state lines for a suitable partnership.

Altonji said that in recent years, international mergers have become more popular.
“Those kinds of mergers don’t happen every day, so there’s only so many possibilities,” he said. But in the past, international expansion was either not an option or was incredibly difficult.

Silver said that at one point, a U.S. firm – if it had an office in Japan – could staff that office only with American lawyers. Eventually, regulations became more relaxed.

“As soon as that regulatory barrier fell away, the firms started taking advantage and hiring local lawyers,” she said. Firms soon began setting up offices in the United Kingdom, hiring local lawyers with more connections to the community.

Now, firms with a U.K. presence may be poised to enter a new market.

wright-del-mug.jpg Wright

Del Wright Jr., assistant professor at Valparaiso University School of Law, said that India – despite performing many outsourced tasks for U.S. firms – has been a closed market for American lawyers.

“India just announced that they are considering opening their market … but they were initially going to open it more to U.K. firms,” Wright said. “But because the U.S. can merge with U.K. firms, there’s a chance that there could be a firm with a fairly strong India presence.”

While hiring local lawyers in other countries may help firms find the clients they need, it may have downfalls, too.

“What you lose is that relationship to the home office,” Silver said.

Making it work

“The question with mergers is how do you integrate?” Silver said. “Or can you continue to exist without thoroughly integrating? A general presumption is that a merger means you have to integrate … but I don’t know whether that’s true.”

Victor Indiano was an attorney for the former patent law firm of Jenkins Coffey Hyland Badger & Conard when it merged with Barnes & Thornburg in 1982. He stayed with Barnes & Thornburg for three years, then moved to Ice Miller, and later to Bose McKinney & Evans. “And then I finally decided I don’t play well with other children,” he said. He started the two-attorney Indiano Law Group in 2000.

Indiano equates an attorney’s relationship with his or her firm to a marriage.

“If you look at your friends and you look at your friends’ spouses, you’ll see that they’re married to very different people,” he said, adding that the traits one person values in a mate may be less important to another person.

He said that lawyers may expect reasonable income, the ability to have control over their own lives, job security and personal job satisfaction.

“Those factors balance differently at different firms,” he said. “After a merger, it is highly likely that the culture will change, which will cause some of the people in the merger to seek other situations.”

But as some lawyers leave large firms to start their own practices, some smaller and solo firms are hoping to unite with large offices that may have resources they lack.

“Up until 2008, we were in a world were everybody was growing … you didn’t have to think too hard to grow your firm, and now you do,” Altonji said. “Some mergers out there are alternatives to irrelevance.”•


Post a comment to this story

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
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. This new language about a warning has not been discussed at previous meetings. It's not available online. Since it must be made public knowledge before the vote, does anyone know exactly what it says? Further, this proposal was held up for 5 weeks because members Carol and Lucy insisted that all terms used be defined. So now, definitions are unnecessary and have not been inserted? Beyond these requirements, what is the logic behind giving one free pass to discriminators? Is that how laws work - break it once and that's ok? Just don't do it again? Three members of Carmel's council have done just about everything they can think of to prohibit an anti-discrimination ordinance in Carmel, much to Brainard's consternation, I'm told. These three 'want to be so careful' that they have failed to do what at least 13 other communities, including Martinsville, have already done. It's not being careful. It's standing in the way of what 60% of Carmel residents want. It's hurting CArmel in thT businesses have refused to locate because the council has not gotten with the program. And now they want to give discriminatory one free shot to do so. Unacceptable. Once three members leave the council because they lost their races, the Carmel council will have unanimous approval of the ordinance as originally drafted, not with a one free shot to discriminate freebie. That happens in January 2016. Why give a freebie when all we have to do is wait 3 months and get an ordinance with teeth from Day 1? If nothing else, can you please get s copy from Carmel and post it so we can see what else has changed in the proposal?

  2. Here is an interesting 2012 law review article for any who wish to dive deeper into this subject matter: Excerpt: "Judicial interpretation of the ADA has extended public entity liability to licensing agencies in the licensure and certification of attorneys.49 State bar examiners have the authority to conduct fitness investigations for the purpose of determining whether an applicant is a direct threat to the public.50 A “direct threat” is defined as “a significant risk to the health or safety of others that cannot be eliminated by a modification of policies, practices or procedures, or by the provision of auxiliary aids or services as provided by § 35.139.”51 However, bar examiners may not utilize generalizations or stereotypes about the applicant’s disability in concluding that an applicant is a direct threat.52"

  3. We have been on the waiting list since 2009, i was notified almost 4 months ago that we were going to start receiving payments and we still have received nothing. Every time I call I'm told I just have to wait it's in the lawyers hands. Is everyone else still waiting?

  4. I hope you dont mind but to answer my question. What amendment does this case pretain to?

  5. Research by William J Federer Chief Justice John Marshall commented May 9, 1833, on the pamphlet The Relation of Christianity to Civil Government in the United States written by Rev. Jasper Adams, President of the College of Charleston, South Carolina (The Papers of John Marshall, ed. Charles Hobson, Chapel Hill: Univ. of North Carolina Press, 2006, p, 278): "Reverend Sir, I am much indebted to you for the copy of your valuable sermon on the relation of Christianity to civil government preached before the convention of the Protestant Episcopal Church in Charleston, on the 13th of February last. I have read it with great attention and advantage. The documents annexed to the sermon certainly go far in sustaining the proposition which it is your purpose to establish. One great object of the colonial charters was avowedly the propagation of the Christian faith. Means have been employed to accomplish this object, and those means have been used by government..." John Marshall continued: "No person, I believe, questions the importance of religion to the happiness of man even during his existence in this world. It has at all times employed his most serious meditation, and had a decided influence on his conduct. The American population is entirely Christian, and with us, Christianity and Religion are identified. It would be strange, indeed, if with such a people, our institutions did not presuppose Christianity, and did not often refer to it, and exhibit relations with it. Legislation on the subject is admitted to require great delicacy, because freedom of conscience and respect for our religion both claim our most serious regard. You have allowed their full influence to both. With very great respect, I am Sir, your Obedt., J. Marshall."