Bond Dickinson sets out global ambitions as merger unites firms with shared goals
Mergers may not be particularly unusual in today's market, but this week's union between Bond Pearce and Dickinson Dees under the Bond Dickinson banner marks a rare example of a merger of equals. With strikingly similar financial results, a brand that namechecks both firms' histories, complementary sector focuses and almost symmetrical UK coverage – Bond Pearce in the southwest and Dickinson Dees in the northeast – it almost seems surprising the pair did not tie up sooner.
May 02, 2013 at 07:03 PM
6 minute read
Gerard Starkey talks to the leaders of the £100m firm formed by the merger of Bond Pearce and Dickinson Dees
Mergers may not be particularly unusual in today's market, but this week's union between Bond Pearce and Dickinson Dees under the Bond Dickinson banner marks a rare example of a merger of equals.
With strikingly similar financial results, a brand that namechecks both firms' histories, complementary sector focuses and almost symmetrical UK coverage – Bond Pearce in the southwest and Dickinson Dees in the northeast – it almost seems surprising the pair did not tie up sooner.
The parallels have simplified the integration process, allowing for a single profit pool from day one, backed by a new constitution drafted up by representatives from both sides – with a new management board comprising four partners from each firm.
"We had both been on each other's shortlists, but had never picked up the phone to one another," says chairman Nick Page (pictured, top left), who held the same post at Bond Pearce.
Both firms had previously stated their intention of climbing to the upper echelons of the UK legal market, with Bond Pearce targeting a place in the top 30 by revenue by 2015, while Dickinson Dees' 2020 Vision eyed a place in the top 20 by the turn of the decade.
However, both came to the conclusion that organic growth alone would not be enough to fulfil their ambitions.
"Neither business was going to be able to achieve what it stated it wanted to achieve without looking at some form of acquisition or merger," reasons managing partner Jonathan Blair (pictured, top right), who also had the same title at Dickinson Dees. "Both businesses had separately held discussions with other law firms."
"Sometimes with the same law firms, which was quite interesting," observes Page.
After initial exploratory talks 18 months ago, the two began more detailed discussions last summer. The question of who would lead the combined firm was tackled straight away – despite reluctance to do so – with Blair selected as managing partner while Bond Pearce managing partner Victor Tettmar has been handed an executive partner role on the combined firm's board.
"We were advised to make that leadership decision very early in the process before we even started the hard work on negotiations and that's what we did," says Page.
Over the winter months, a new constitution was drafted by Dickinson Dees corporate partner Jamie Pass and Bond Pearce projects partner Nick Barwood, while the heads of the firm's seven key sectors, as well as its four business group leaders, were also drawn up.
Blair says of the selection process: "Inevitably, there is a bit of 'why not me?' that comes in. But it's human nature, so that's only to be expected."
Although briefly debated, management decided against the need for a partner lock-in. "We want people to be bound in for good reasons not negative, so no lock-ins," says Page. In addition, there will be no ring-fencing of profits, with all partners eating from the same table.
Blair explains: "We are bringing the two businesses together, which is why the finances were an enabler, so we are not having separate profit pools. From day one, we'll all be sharing the same levels of profit."
Still to be finalised is the partnership remuneration structure. Bond Pearce currently operates a three-tier structure and Dickinson Dees a two-tier.
However, the expectation is for partners to move to the latter set-up consisting of junior and full equity partners but no salaried rank. A final decision is expected to be made following the inaugural Bond Dickinson partnership conference in September.
Also still to be finalised are the firm's plans for continued expansion. Of the eight UK locations the firm now operates in – Newcastle, Tees Valley, Plymouth, Southampton, Bristol, London, Aberdeen and Leeds – the latter three have been highlighted as investment priorities.
As part of this, the firm is combining its two London bases, taking 20,000 sq ft of space in Lawrence Graham's More London office from July – gifting it an additional 9,000 sq ft on its current combined space.
It already has a raft of potential lateral hires in the pipeline, but is also considering a tie-up in London as, with combined revenues of £100m putting it within the top 40 UK firms, it is still short of both respective legacy firms' stated intentions.
"Whether we go to the next level by merger or acquisition is something we've still got to decide. The aspiration is there, but the execution is something we still have to work through," says Blair.
"That's what's exciting – we don't know what the next opportunity will be," explains Page. "It might be a specialist practice in London. It could be a firm breaking up. It could be an approach from an international firm – who knows?"
Blair interjects: "There is a commitment for us to look at international, so it's not a random 'we might do this'. We have committed to look at what our international footprint needs to be. International has got to be part of any successful law firm's armoury going forward."
The immediate priority, though, will be bedding down the merger and making the most of what Bond Dickinson has to offer. The firm has already won one major mandate: an appointment to the Network Rail panel; something both Blair and Page concede would not have been possible without the union.
Blair says: "If you look at Network Rail as an example, they had 12 to 15 firms on the panel and they've now gone down to four, so that's a good example of what is going on in the sector. The fact we've moved from two £50m businesses to one £100m business makes us more credible."
BOND DICKINSON FACTFILE
Combined revenue 2012-13 £100m (£95m 2011-12)
Profits per equity partner 2011-12 2011-12 £235,000
Partner count 142
Lawyers 700+
Offices Aberdeen, Bristol, Leeds, London, Newcastle, Plymouth, Southampton, Tees Valley
Practice groups Corporate, dispute resolution, real estate, private wealth
Sector focus Energy, financial institutions, petrochemicals and manufacturing, private wealth, transport and infrastructure, retail, real estate investments
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 AllTrump and Latin America: Lawyers Brace for Hard-Line Approach to Region
BCLP Mulls Merger Prospects as Profitability Lags, Partnership Shrinks
Trending Stories
- 1Lawyer as Whistleblower? Associate Sues Firm
- 2New Class Action Points to Fears Over Privacy, Abortions and Fertility
- 3Ex-Big Law Attorney Disbarred for Defrauding $1 Million of Client Money
- 4'New Circumstances': Winston & Strawn Seek Expedited Relief in NASCAR Antitrust Lawsuit
- 5Productivity Suite Startup Macro Announces $12 Million Funding Round
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