Report: Very Few Law Firm Mergers on Horizon for Rest of 2020
Fairfax Associates tracked 26 completed mergers in the first half of 2020, which is down from 2019's 30. But that number is expected to drop as the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic take hold.
June 30, 2020 at 05:56 PM
4 minute read
The original version of this story was published on The American Lawyer
The number of completed law firm mergers in the second quarter of 2020 was on par with prior years, but the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic will dramatically impact the number of mergers in the second half of the year, according to a consultancy tracking mergers.
Overall, the number of mergers completed in the first half of 2020 was down compared to last year and the 10-year historical average, according to Fairfax Associates. So far in 2020, the law firm consultancy has tracked 26 completed mergers, which is down from 2019′s 30 mergers—also the historical average.
The slowdown is not about a change in strategy but the result of timing related to the pandemic, according to a principal at Fairfax.
Of the five combinations that were completed in the second quarter of this year, two involved Dentons combining with law firms in Montevideo, Uruguay and Buenos Aires, Argentina, and another saw Littler Mendelson combining with a Warsaw, Poland, firm. The only domestic combinations that occurred this past quarter were in Philadelphia, in which Cozen O'Connor and Lamb McErlane each picked up a small law firm.
"The second quarter was not that different from last year, but the second quarter is always low," said Fairfax Associates principal Lisa Smith. "What we're going to see is that the third quarter is also going to be super low, and probably the fourth quarter."
Right now, the only merger that's set to be completed in the third quarter is between Troutman Sanders and Pepper Hamilton. That merger's effective date was delayed by three months due to the international outbreak of the coronavirus.
Law firms are still interested in mergers and scaling up, according to Smith and other legal consultants. But Smith said firms are being especially cautious now as the pandemic has forced several firms to lay off or furlough employees and cut salaries and partner draws.
As a result, the merger discussions Smith and her colleagues have been involved in have been put on pause until the fourth quarter.
"Had we not seen this kind of second surge, it might have started to pick up," Smith said. "I think people are feeling the uncertainty of what's going to happen for the rest of the year is making them focus on the business resilience measures—and delivering the 2020 results."
A law firm that's cutting salaries or reducing partner draws is unlikely to merge with another firm because of how costly it is, Smith said. Mergers between large firms can have price tags in the millions because of the costs associated with technology integration, branding, business development and shedding excess employees and office space, she added.
"The trend we're seeing is not a change in strategy, but a function in timing," Smith said. "It's just not the time to be pursuing that as aggressively."
Smith held open the possibility that the pandemic could push distressed firms into the market in the hopes of finding a white knight to merge with and rescue them. But whether those white knights decide to take on those risks is a bigger question, and instead they might wait for the firms to collapse and scoop up who they want.
"This is the pattern we saw in the last downturn," Smith said, before adding that an open question is whether that happens this year or next year.
|Read More
Pay Cuts, Layoffs, and More: How Law Firms Are Managing the Pandemic
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllDavis Polk Lands Spirit Chapter 11 Amid Bankruptcy Resurgence
Companies' Dirty Little Secret: Those Privacy Opt-Out Requests Usually Aren't Honored
Ballooning Workloads, Dearth of Advancement Opportunities Prime In-House Attorneys to Pull Exit Hatch
What Practices Are Driving Law Firms’ ‘Remarkable’ Performance in 2024?
4 minute readLaw Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1Senators Grill Visa, Mastercard Execs on Alleged Anti-Competitive Practices, Fees
- 2Deal Watch: Gibson Dunn, V&E, Kirkland Lead Big Energy Deals in Another Strong Week in Transactions
- 3Advisory Opinion Offers 'Road Map' for Judges Defending Against Campaign Attacks
- 4Commencement of Child Victims Act at Heart of Federal Question Posed to NY's Top Court
- 5Bolstering Southern California Presence, Sidley Austin Settles Into Revitalized Downtown LA Office
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250