Busy Season for Law Firm Mergers Sets Stage for 2020
Going into the new year, law firms are still interested in scaling up through mergers and combinations. But a potential recession could make things more challenging for already-distressed firms.
December 22, 2019 at 06:00 PM
4 minute read
The same forces that drove law firms to combine or merge in 2019 are likely to continue into the new year, even as the specter of a potential recession looms larger in the background.
The latter half of the year saw several major merger announcements: Minneapolis-based Faegre Baker Daniels and Philadelphia-based Drinker Biddle & Reath voted to join forces to create a new Am Law 50 firm, Cincinnati-based Taft Stettinius & Hollister and Minneapolis-based Briggs and Morgan said they would merge to create a 600-lawyer firm, and Kansas City, Missouri-based Lathrop Gage is merging with Minneapolis' Gray Plant Mooty to form the 400-lawyer Lathrop GPM.
Atlanta-based Troutman Sanders and Philadelphia's Pepper Hamilton also confirmed they were in advanced merger talks, and Cohen & Grigsby in Pittsburgh and Bingham Greenebaum Doll in Indianapolis agreed to become part of global megafirm Dentons' new "Golden Spike' network of U.S. affiliates.
Even though 2018 was "the best year for the industry since the financial crisis," and 2019 is shaping to be a decent year revenue-wise, some firms are choosing not to be complacent, said Kent Zimmermann, a Zeughauser Group consultant who advises firms on mergers.
"In many firms, where there's a sober recognition of what's happening in the competitive environment, there's a view that doing nothing is not an option," Zimmermann said. "Even if you're doing fine, by doing nothing, you're at risk of having the market pass you by."
The Faegre/Drinker, Taft, Lathrop GPM and Dentons combinations will be executed in 2020. Many of the mergers that were completed in 2019 involved smaller firms, although that's "a function of timing," said Lisa Smith, a principal at Fairfax Associates.
"As we look ahead what will be effective and what's likely to be effective, then I think we'll see it skew significantly upward in terms of the size of combinations," Smith said, regarding 2020.
Both ZImmermann and Smith said they're continuing to see a very high interest in merging and combining from law firms, which are facing to pressure to consolidate from clients that are looking to reduce the roster of law firms they go to for specialized legal help. They're also seeing rising technology costs as well as competition from alternative service providers.
Also on the horizon for 2020, however, is the potential threat of an economic recession. A number of law firms have said they're preparing for it by beefing up practices that thrive in a bad economy, including bankruptcy and litigation. In-house counsel have said they have already begun to roll back their legal spending as they anticipate a recession in the next two years.
Smith said firms that are properly scaled up will be better equipped to survive an economic recession. If isn't, a firm might not be able to make hard decisions like letting unproductive partners go "because you don't want to be on a downward spiral."
"There's sometimes the view that smaller midsize firms are more nimble," Smith said. "I'm not sure that's actually true, because I think they're a little more hamstrung, particularly if it's a full-service firm – needing to have enough depth in all of those services even if they aren't fully productive – whereas I think larger firms have more ability to right-size."
One of the reasons why law firms choose to merge or combine is because they're in—or want to avoid getting in—financial distress, Zimmermann noted. For instance, one of the driving factors in the Taft-Briggs merger was Briggs and Morgan's inability to quickly replace its retiring partners.
"As a growing group of firms show distress in a strong economy, I would expect the distress to get more acute in a weak economy," Zimmermann said. "I can't imagine how they would do when the economy softens and demand decreases, except for those that have strong countercyclical practices."
|Read More
Under Pressure From All Sides, Law Firms Are Responding by Scaling 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 All'Further Investment in Power' Will Drive Big Law Business—But What About Clean Energy Projects?
6 minute readLegal Departments Gripe About Outside Counsel but Rarely Talk to Them
4 minute readAs Profits Rise, Law Firms Likely to Make More AI Investments in 2025
Law Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1Call for Nominations: Elite Trial Lawyers 2025
- 2Senate Judiciary Dems Release Report on Supreme Court Ethics
- 3Senate Confirms Last 2 of Biden's California Judicial Nominees
- 4Morrison & Foerster Doles Out Year-End and Special Bonuses, Raises Base Compensation for Associates
- 5Tom Girardi to Surrender to Federal Authorities on Jan. 7
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