ILNews

Prioritizing increases ease of mergers

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

If you’re looking to expand your law firm’s geographic reach or portfolio of services, you might be thinking about the benefits of a merger – and the many steps involved in making that happen.

New letterhead, new website, new people – those are just a few considerations when attempting to grow your practice through merger. While firms may have different ideas about how to prioritize the many components of a merger, most managing attorneys or CEOs will tell you that your clients should always be at the top of the list.

Controlling the message

It’s no secret that firms are reluctant to talk about pending mergers. But inevitably, someone is going to get wind of the news and tell the press or tweet about it to a worldwide audience. If you lose control of how news of your merger is released, your clients may wonder if your firm is the proverbial sinking ship.
 

melanie green Green

Melanie Green, chief client development officer for the newly merged firm Faegre Baker Daniels, said that only a small group of upper-level management was involved in initial merger talks between Baker & Daniels and Minneapolis-based Faegre & Benson. Once the firms agreed to the merger and informed employees of that decision, they worked quickly to manage the news.

“We knew that with two firms making those announcements internally, that would quickly spread to other audiences,” Green said.

The firms acknowledged publicly that they were discussing a merger but released few other details. And management asked lawyers at both firms to call clients and let them know what was happening.

“So we took a pretty one-to-one approach,” Green said.

Phil Bayt, chief managing partner for Ice Miller, said that before the firm announced its merger with Columbus, Ohio-based Schottenstein Zox & Dunn, it had a thorough plan for disseminating the news.

“Well in advance of announcing the combination we developed a comprehensive internal and external communications strategy that included all our key stakeholders,” Bayt said. “Obviously, communicating the great news to clients was a top priority, and we did so through personal meetings, phone calls and email communication.” 

In November 2011, Jay McAveeney joined Bingham McHale as chief operating officer. In that role, he helped prepare the firm for its merger with Greenebaum Doll & McDonald, headquartered in Louisville, Ky.

McAveeney had been involved in mergers before, but he said the partnership that formed Bingham Greenebaum Doll was the first “merger of equals” he’d helped oversee.

“The ideal scenario is you try to hold off on an announcement until after the merger is approved by the respective firms, and I say that only because the success rate or the rate that mergers are actually consummated is not that high,” McAveeney said. “The hard part though is keeping it hush-hush. At some point, if it does get out and it hits the press somehow, you have to be ready to deal with that.”

Finding the right match

If your law firm lives for casual Friday, you probably don’t want to merge with a firm that strongly believes lawyers should always wear suits. In love, opposites may attract, but the same is not true for law firms.


froehle-tom-mug4c.jpg Froehle

Tom Froehle, chief executive officer for Faegre Baker Daniels, said that Baker & Daniels spent a lot of time thinking about what it wanted in a merger. Faegre & Benson seemed to be a good match – its practice areas like life sciences and corporate transactions were both areas that Baker & Daniels identified as desirable in its own growth, and both firms placed equal emphasis on diversity. But Froehle said that even when firms seem to have similar cultures, the true test of compatibility is how people get along face-to-face.

Baker & Daniels budgeted for travel so management could meet in person with decision-makers at Faegre & Benson and decide whether they all seemed to agree on general management strategies.

“That really is important – that personal interaction and spending a couple of days with people who you are likely to be working with,” Froehle said.

Patience is also a factor in finding a good match. When Sommer Barnard announced in 2008 that it would merge with Cincinnati-based Taft Stettinius & Hollister, the firms had been discussing plans for two years, said Bob Hicks, partner-in-charge of the firm’s Indianapolis office. More recently, Taft Stettinius & Hollister announced a merger with Chester Willcox & Saxbe, based in Columbus, Ohio, a plan that had been in the works for several years, Hicks said.


bob hicks Hicks

“So the old adage, ‘good things are worth waiting for’ is very much true when dealing with something so critical as a major law firm merger,” he added.

Prioritizing needs

You can probably wait until later to figure out how you’ll manage to provide enough coffee for a staff that just doubled in size, but some issues require more immediate attention.

Green said that Faegre Baker Daniels had new business cards and letterhead ready to go on Jan. 1, the day the merger became effective. The new website was launched immediately, too, as it had been in development for three months.

“We definitely had the benefit of some time to get those things done … but that’s not a general way of how all combinations come together,” Green said. Some firms may not have enough lead time to get a new website ready to launch by the merger’s effective date, she added, but they can find temporary solutions. That’s what Bingham Greenebaum Doll did.

McAveeney said that new email addresses were ready for use at the beginning of the year, but the website will continue to be revamped.

“The website – the way we’ve done it is we now have both our legacy URLs pointing to a merged firm website. It’s really just a landing page, but from there, you can click through to the legacy web site,” he said.

Pleasing people

Combining two firms with multiple offices while minimizing employee stress takes some finesse. And being forthright with attorneys and staff may help ease concerns.

“You communicate honestly, regularly and openly,” Hicks said. “Employees fear the unknown. It is the job of firm leadership to eliminate as much of the unknown as possible.”

McAveeney said with any merger, the key to employee satisfaction is making sure any new or changed responsibilities suit each person.

“That’s a delicate dance, if you will. It starts with not necessarily new employees, but in getting the right people in the right roles,” he said.

Despite management’s best efforts, some people may choose to leave a firm after a merger, especially if they fear their jobs may be eliminated.

“Part of the decision making that needs to be done is when you’re integrating, you have redundancies, and do you eliminate the people in those positions? But that’s usually a little bit down the road before you have start making those kinds of decisions,” he said.

Whether a merger is successful depends largely on how firms define success. Profit is just one marker of success, as far as McAveeneymerger is concerned.

“It all centers around servicing existing clients with a broader platform, so my idea of success is when a legacy Greenebaum Doll & McDonald client is now worked on by a legacy Bingham McHale attorney in Indianapolis that Greenebaum wouldn’t have had access to in the past,” he said.

Green said that internal harmony and ensuring that clients feel their needs are being met are two critical elements of any merger.

“Because law is a people business,” she said.•

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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I like the concept. Seems like a good idea and really inexpensive to manage.

  2. I don't agree that this is an extreme case. There are more of these people than you realize - people that are vindictive and/or with psychological issues have clogged the system with baseless suits that are costly to the defendant and to taxpayers. Restricting repeat offenders from further abusing the system is not akin to restricting their freedon, but to protecting their victims, and the court system, from allowing them unfettered access. From the Supreme Court opinion "he has burdened the opposing party and the courts of this state at every level with massive, confusing, disorganized, defective, repetitive, and often meritless filings."

  3. So, if you cry wolf one too many times courts may "restrict" your ability to pursue legal action? Also, why is document production equated with wealth? Anyone can "produce probably tens of thousands of pages of filings" if they have a public library card. I understand this is an extreme case, but our Supreme Court really got this one wrong.

  4. He called our nation a nation of cowards because we didn't want to talk about race. That was a cheap shot coming from the top cop. The man who decides who gets the federal government indicts. Wow. Not a gentleman if that is the measure. More importantly, this insult delivered as we all understand, to white people-- without him or anybody needing to explain that is precisely what he meant-- but this is an insult to timid white persons who fear the government and don't want to say anything about race for fear of being accused a racist. With all the legal heat that can come down on somebody if they say something which can be construed by a prosecutor like Mr Holder as racist, is it any wonder white people-- that's who he meant obviously-- is there any surprise that white people don't want to talk about race? And as lawyers we have even less freedom lest our remarks be considered violations of the rules. Mr Holder also demonstrated his bias by publically visiting with the family of the young man who was killed by a police offering in the line of duty, which was a very strong indicator of bias agains the offer who is under investigation, and was a failure to lead properly by letting his investigators do their job without him predetermining the proper outcome. He also has potentially biased the jury pool. All in all this worsens race relations by feeding into the perception shared by whites as well as blacks that justice will not be impartial. I will say this much, I do not blame Obama for all of HOlder's missteps. Obama has done a lot of things to stay above the fray and try and be a leader for all Americans. Maybe he should have reigned Holder in some but Obama's got his hands full with other problelms. Oh did I mention HOlder is a bank crony who will probably get a job in a silkstocking law firm working for millions of bucks a year defending bankers whom he didn't have the integrity or courage to hold to account for their acts of fraud on the United States, other financial institutions, and the people. His tenure will be regarded by history as a failure of leadership at one of the most important jobs in our nation. Finally and most importantly besides him insulting the public and letting off the big financial cheats, he has been at the forefront of over-prosecuting the secrecy laws to punish whistleblowers and chill free speech. What has Holder done to vindicate the rights of privacy of the American public against the illegal snooping of the NSA? He could have charged NSA personnel with violations of law for their warrantless wiretapping which has been done millions of times and instead he did not persecute a single soul. That is a defalcation of historical proportions and it signals to the public that the government DOJ under him was not willing to do a damn thing to protect the public against the rapid growth of the illegal surveillance state. Who else could have done this? Nobody. And for that omission Obama deserves the blame too. Here were are sliding into a police state and Eric Holder made it go all the faster.

  5. JOE CLAYPOOL candidate for Superior Court in Harrison County - Indiana This candidate is misleading voters to think he is a Judge by putting Elect Judge Joe Claypool on his campaign literature. paragraphs 2 and 9 below clearly indicate this injustice to voting public to gain employment. What can we do? Indiana Code - Section 35-43-5-3: Deception (a) A person who: (1) being an officer, manager, or other person participating in the direction of a credit institution, knowingly or intentionally receives or permits the receipt of a deposit or other investment, knowing that the institution is insolvent; (2) knowingly or intentionally makes a false or misleading written statement with intent to obtain property, employment, or an educational opportunity; (3) misapplies entrusted property, property of a governmental entity, or property of a credit institution in a manner that the person knows is unlawful or that the person knows involves substantial risk of loss or detriment to either the owner of the property or to a person for whose benefit the property was entrusted; (4) knowingly or intentionally, in the regular course of business, either: (A) uses or possesses for use a false weight or measure or other device for falsely determining or recording the quality or quantity of any commodity; or (B) sells, offers, or displays for sale or delivers less than the represented quality or quantity of any commodity; (5) with intent to defraud another person furnishing electricity, gas, water, telecommunication, or any other utility service, avoids a lawful charge for that service by scheme or device or by tampering with facilities or equipment of the person furnishing the service; (6) with intent to defraud, misrepresents the identity of the person or another person or the identity or quality of property; (7) with intent to defraud an owner of a coin machine, deposits a slug in that machine; (8) with intent to enable the person or another person to deposit a slug in a coin machine, makes, possesses, or disposes of a slug; (9) disseminates to the public an advertisement that the person knows is false, misleading, or deceptive, with intent to promote the purchase or sale of property or the acceptance of employment;

ADVERTISEMENT