ILNews

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.

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
2015 Distinguished Barrister &
Up and Coming Lawyer Reception

Tuesday, May 5, 2015 • 4:30 - 7:00 pm
Learn More


ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. The $320,000 is the amount the school spent in litigating two lawsuits: One to release the report involving John Trimble (as noted in the story above) and one defending the discrimination lawsuit. The story above does not mention the amount spent to defend the discrimination suit, that's why the numbers don't match. Thanks for reading.

  2. $160k? Yesterday the figure was $320k. Which is it Indiana Lawyer. And even more interesting, which well connected law firm got the (I am guessing) $320k, six time was the fired chancellor received. LOL. (From yesterday's story, which I guess we were expected to forget overnight ... "According to records obtained by the Journal & Courier, Purdue spent $161,812, beginning in July 2012, in a state open records lawsuit and $168,312, beginning in April 2013, for defense in a federal lawsuit. Much of those fees were spent battling court orders to release an independent investigation by attorney John Trimble that found Purdue could have handled the forced retirement better")

  3. The numbers are harsh; 66 - 24 in the House, 40 - 10 in the Senate. And it is an idea pushed by the Democrats. Dead end? Ummm not necessarily. Just need to go big rather than go home. Nuclear option. Give it to the federal courts, the federal courts will ram this down our throats. Like that other invented right of the modern age, feticide. Rights too precious to be held up by 2000 years of civilization hang in the balance. Onward!

  4. I'm currently seeing someone who has a charge of child pornography possession, he didn't know he had it because it was attached to a music video file he downloaded when he was 19/20 yrs old and fought it for years until he couldn't handle it and plead guilty of possession. He's been convicted in Illinois and now lives in Indiana. Wouldn't it be better to give them a chance to prove to the community and their families that they pose no threat? He's so young and now because he was being a kid and downloaded music at a younger age, he has to pay for it the rest of his life? It's unfair, he can't live a normal life, and has to live in fear of what people can say and do to him because of something that happened 10 years ago? No one deserves that, and no one deserves to be labeled for one mistake, he got labeled even though there was no intent to obtain and use the said content. It makes me so sad to see someone I love go through this and it makes me holds me back a lot because I don't know how people around me will accept him...second chances should be given to those under the age of 21 at least so they can be given a chance to live a normal life as a productive member of society.

  5. It's just an ill considered remark. The Sup Ct is inherently political, as it is a core part of government, and Marbury V Madison guaranteed that it would become ever more so Supremely thus. So her remark is meaningless and she just should have not made it.... what she could have said is that Congress is a bunch of lazys and cowards who wont do their jobs so the hard work of making laws clear, oftentimes stops with the Sups sorting things out that could have been resolved by more competent legislation. That would have been a more worthwhile remark and maybe would have had some relevance to what voters do, since voters cant affect who gets appointed to the supremely un-democratic art III courts.

ADVERTISEMENT