More Mergers–and Merger Whispers–Keep Firms on Their Toes
Legal consultants say the number of firms engaged in undisclosed merger negotiations is on the rise along with the volume of announced deals, making early intelligence about potential mergers an especially hot commodity.
October 17, 2017 at 06:35 PM
31 minute read
Few observers expect law firm mergers to stop dominating legal industry headlines anytime soon. The volume of announced deals is poised to break records this year, and legal consultants say the number of firms engaged in undisclosed negotiations is also on the rise—making early intelligence about potential mergers an especially hot commodity.
Law firm mergers hit their 12-month peak in 2015, with 91 deals. The next year, that figure dropped to 85. But this year is easily on pace to surpass the record, with Altman Weil principal Eric Seeger predicting the number could hit 100 for 2017.
Berwin Leighton Paiser, a big U.K. firm that discussed a combination with Greenberg Traurig last year, is now mulling a potential union with Bryan Cave. The tentative deal, which both firms acknowledged in a joint statement on Monday, would create a combined 1,500-lawyer firm with 32 offices in 12 countries around the world. Total combined gross revenue would approach the $1 billion mark.
Earlier this month, sources told ALM that Andrews Kurth Kenyon and Hunton & Williams were engaged in merger talks. Smaller firms in markets across the country have been busily combining all year. Philadelphia alone saw a string of major deals last month, with Cozen O'Connor acquiring a real estate boutique in California, Ballard Spahr expanding into the Midwest, and Saul Ewing merging with Chicago-based Arnstein & Lehr.
Then, of course, there are all the potential deals that are still secret, with just a few partners privy to the negotiations.
Janet Stanton and Bruce MacEwen of Adam Smith Esq. in New York, along with Kent Zimmermann of Zeughauser Group, each said there's been an uptick lately in behind-the-scenes merger activity.
“There's deals happening,” Stanton said, echoing the sentiments of the other two.
Given that firms work so hard to keep early-stage talks quiet, Stanton noted that partner defections can be one predictor of ongoing or imminent merger talks.
“That is a really obvious thing to look at, because the people who are left behind are less and less mobile,” said Stanton.
In June, four months before The American Lawyer first reported the Andrews Kurth and Hunton & Williams talks, Shearman & Sterling announced that it had snapped up a five-partner team of antitrust lawyers from Hunton & Williams. (One of them, David Higbee, said the two events are “unrelated.”) Houston-based Andrews Kurth has also been hit with a series of partner defections this year. Most recently, one of the firm's key rainmaking partners, David Buck, co-chairman of the firm's corporate and securities practice, gave notice that he was leaving to go to Sidley Austin.
Several law firms have raided Andrews Kurth this year to expand their own Texas and energy practices. Greenberg Traurig in Dallas picked up four real estate lawyers in September. Jackson Walker took four partners from the firm this summer, while in February, King & Spalding took four corporate attorneys.
Of course, partner mobility is a hallmark of Big Law nowadays, and defections alone aren't a sure sign that a firm is on the merger market. “Some partners are more equal than others,” said MacEwen. “There are people who are sort of symbolic of the firm,” he noted, citing management committee departures as a signal that a firm may be casting about for a suitor.
MacEwen also points out that the rationale for merger discussions can sometimes boil down to “optics.” For a firm that appears to be flailing, engaging in merger talks at least means “it looks like you are doing something.” Plus, he acknowledged, “Bigger firms have more market awareness.”
But optics can only get firms so far. While plenty of deals are “well thought through,” said Stanton, “some of the mergers are just two drunks propping each other up.”
Few observers expect law firm mergers to stop dominating legal industry headlines anytime soon. The volume of announced deals is poised to break records this year, and legal consultants say the number of firms engaged in undisclosed negotiations is also on the rise—making early intelligence about potential mergers an especially hot commodity.
Law firm mergers hit their 12-month peak in 2015, with 91 deals. The next year, that figure dropped to 85. But this year is easily on pace to surpass the record, with Altman Weil principal Eric Seeger predicting the number could hit 100 for 2017.
Earlier this month, sources told ALM that
Then, of course, there are all the potential deals that are still secret, with just a few partners privy to the negotiations.
Janet Stanton and Bruce MacEwen of Adam Smith Esq. in
“There's deals happening,” Stanton said, echoing the sentiments of the other two.
Given that firms work so hard to keep early-stage talks quiet, Stanton noted that partner defections can be one predictor of ongoing or imminent merger talks.
“That is a really obvious thing to look at, because the people who are left behind are less and less mobile,” said Stanton.
In June, four months before The American Lawyer first reported the
Several law firms have raided
Of course, partner mobility is a hallmark of Big Law nowadays, and defections alone aren't a sure sign that a firm is on the merger market. “Some partners are more equal than others,” said MacEwen. “There are people who are sort of symbolic of the firm,” he noted, citing management committee departures as a signal that a firm may be casting about for a suitor.
MacEwen also points out that the rationale for merger discussions can sometimes boil down to “optics.” For a firm that appears to be flailing, engaging in merger talks at least means “it looks like you are doing something.” Plus, he acknowledged, “Bigger firms have more market awareness.”
But optics can only get firms so far. While plenty of deals are “well thought through,” said Stanton, “some of the mergers are just two drunks propping each other up.”
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 AllSimpson Thacher Launches in Luxembourg With Hires From A&O Shearman, Clifford Chance
3 minute readA&O Shearman's Former U.S. Co-Chair to Leave Partnership
Trending Stories
- 1Judicial Ethics Opinion 24-68
- 2Friday Newspaper
- 3Judge Denies Sean Combs Third Bail Bid, Citing Community Safety
- 4Republican FTC Commissioner: 'The Time for Rulemaking by the Biden-Harris FTC Is Over'
- 5NY Appellate Panel Cites Student's Disciplinary History While Sending Negligence Claim Against School District to Trial
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