With the dust settling on the surprise merger talks between arch-rivals Clyde & Co and Barlow Lyde & Gilbert, the question is how likely a deal will be to happen. As Legal Week went to press, the odds looked maybe better than even, with talk that a proposal could be put to the firms' partnerships in a matter of weeks – most likely in July.

The need to press on is understandable. If mergers are worth doing they get done quickly – at least once they have gone public. At the least, both firms will want to resolve the situation before the summer dead-zone starts.

Barlows certainly will. The stakes for the smaller firm are particularly high. Having gone through a well-publicised period of problems spanning a decade, there have been signs of a firmer management grip and clearer direction over the last two years.

Yet even with a 17% bump in revenues during 2010-11 and a promising acquisition of Halliwells' insurance business under its belt, the firm's position remains somewhat fragile. If a workable deal does not materialise quickly, the firm must be ready to walk away rather than get bogged down in an SJ Berwin/Proskauer Rose-style marathon (pursuing a US merger still remains the most likely Plan B).

Given the nature of the two firms' rivalry over the years, many are wondering how practical it will be to combine the pair. On closer inspection the hurdles are probably less daunting than may seem to pull off the largest-ever legal merger in the UK. Despite the huge crossover on insurance, these clients are not in the habit of litigating against each other.

The biggest problem won't be conflicts among the insurance portfolio, it will be reassuring these notoriously demanding clients that a union will be good for them. With those discussions ongoing this week, the response from a handful of key clients will play a major part in defining whether the deal gets over the line. (It should also be remembered that Clydes' practice tilts considerably further towards marine and energy work than Barlows').

Other doubters question whether Clydes, having focused up the value chain in recent years, will be interested in Barlows' efforts in the volume and regional insurance markets (Barlows seems to believe that it is).

The finances will also be an issue given that Clydes' profits per equity partner (PEP) hit £605,000 last year, double that of Barlows. However, a glance at the respective revenue per lawyer and leverage numbers for both firms shows that the underlying productivity and market position of the two firms is much more closely aligned than PEP would suggest.

Still, there is little doubt that a substantial number of Barlows' partners wouldn't get equity status at a combined firm, reflecting that this would, in many ways, be a takeover. One way or another, Barlows will have to be ready to face some hard choices. Apparently, that's not a problem.