To date, UK law firms have been somewhat more restrained than their US counterparts when it comes to the question of names. Getting your name on the letterhead is of course a nice benefit of establishing your own partnership, and eponymous partnerships are a legal requirement for the most part in the US, but the resulting firm names hardly trip off the tongue – Skadden Arps Slate Meagher & Flom, Paul Weiss Rifkind Wharton & Garrison, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr, to name but a few.

In the UK at least, law firms have not been required to use the names of founding partners for many years, and the main reason law firm naming convention has continued in this fashion appears to be tradition, as well as a degree of inertia.

This said, the advent of the Legal Services Act and related regulatory changes have allowed a little outside influence to filter through, with distinctly less traditional brands such as Brilliant Law, Thinking Legal and QualitySolicitors emerging. If some of the new law firm names lack the gravitas of their more longstanding peers, you can at least argue their line of business is obvious.

However, the recent rash of transatlantic mergers has thrown up some interesting questions of nomenclature. You can just imagine the discussions behind closed doors as management thrashes out variables that attempt to capture the essence of both merger partners – which name should come first, which parts should be used, or indeed whether one name is entirely subsumed following the tie-up.

Nelson Hartson lost out when his 1938 partnership with Frank Hogan joined the annals of history following the 2010 merger of Hogan Hartson and Lovells (the latter itself having been through various guises including Lovell White & King and Lovell White Durrant). And the firm currently known as Dentons has gone back to basics after various reincarnations in recent years.

So as the potential merger of SJ Berwin and King & Wood Mallesons goes to a vote this week, it will be interesting to see what becomes of the SJ Berwin brand, with some partners suggesting it may disappear altogether – not least because legacy King & Wood was not founded by Mr King and Mr Wood, and is instead an interesting example of an Asian firm adopting Western-style branding.

Without doubt, such a potentially game-changing tie-up has far more hanging on it than the eventual name of the merged entity, but, with branding so key to a law firm's fortunes, it is surprising that so few are able to offer a striking brand to the outside world. 

And of course, the Berwin brand will live on in the name of the other firm founded by legendary legal entrepreneur Stanley Berwin – that is, until the next international merger partner comes calling…