Ohio law firm acquires Indianapolis firm

Scott Olson
March 17, 2010
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

One of Indianapolis' oldest law practices has been absorbed by a Cleveland law firm.

Dann Pecar Newman & Kleiman became part of Benesch Friedlander Coplan & Aronoff March 1, and changed its name to Benesch/Dann Pecar.

The firm's new moniker will be used locally for a transitional period of up to 18 months before Dann Pecar ultimately is dropped altogether in favor of the Benesch name, said Jeff Abrams, Dann Pecar's former managing partner. Abrams is now a member of Benesch's executive committee, taking the title of partner-in-charge of the Indianapolis office.

Founded in 1911, Dann Pecar has 29 lawyers and is Indianapolis' 17th-largest law firm, according to statistics from the Indianapolis Business Journal, sister publication to Indiana Lawyer. Benesch was founded in 1938 and has 145 attorneys, 110 of whom are in Cleveland. It also has locations in Columbus, Ohio; Wilmington, Del.; White Plains, N.Y.; and Shanghai, China.

That range proved attractive to Dann Pecar, whose smaller size made it difficult to provide some legal services, Abrams said.

"We've had opportunities to obtain new clients and expand our work, but we didn't have the skill set," he said. "[Benesch has] a great amount of resources that we don't have."

Chief among them are Benesch's health care and intellectual property practices, neither of which are among Dann Pecar's strengths, Abrams said. Dann Pecar's real estate work, however, was attractive to Benesch.

Dann Pecar leaders had been searching for a merger partner for a few years and had discussions with a handful of other firms before coming to terms with Benesch.

Two of the four firms Dann Pecar negotiated with are based in Indianapolis, said Abrams, who declined to name them.

"For whatever reasons, the others didn't work," he said. "But this one definitely became more and more inviting."

Abrams acknowledged the past few years have been "a little challenging," but he maintained the firm is profitable.

Benesch's acquisition of Dann Pecar allows it to continue its growth plans, said Ira Kaplan, Benesch managing partner.

"Our strategic plan calls for growth in core practices, and Benesch and Dann Pecar match up very well in that regard," he said. "It also is important to us to expand our Midwest presence, which provides us with broader reach and depth to better serve our clients."

One year short of reaching its 100-year milestone, Dann Pecar becomes the third Indianapolis firm in recent years to be acquired by an out-of-state law firm.

In May 2008, Sommer Barnard became part of Cincinnati-based Taft Stettinius & Hollister. Sommer Barnard was founded in 1969 and had 103 lawyers, making it the seventh-largest in the city, according to IBJ statistics. Taft, whose roots date to 1885, has 200 lawyers in Cincinnati. Its other Ohio offices are in Cleveland, Columbus, and Dayton.

In December 2008, Locke Reynolds, Indianapolis' eighth-largest firm, announced its 79 attorneys would join forces with Cincinnati-based Frost Brown Todd's roster of 370 attorneys spread among nine locations in five states.


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. Lori, you must really love wedding cake stories like this one ... happy enuf ending for you?

  2. 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?

  3. 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"

  4. 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?

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