Sometimes it is instructive to judge the progress of a merger not by what has gone right, but by what has not gone wrong.

Recent years have seen a steady procession of mergers and merger attempts that have gone awry. Even at the earliest stages, trying to get a tie-up off the ground without causing disruption is fraught with difficulty. A lack of consensus on strategy or the discovery of client conflicts can lead to infighting or a talent drain.

But the real graft begins once agreement is achieved and the newly combined firm embarks on the long road to integration, with its accompanying financial costs and potentially crippling internal politics. If merger partners get it wrong, much of the damage might not be apparent for some time: teams may not leave; revenue and profits may not immediately slump; but the clients will certainly notice the difference.

As our cover feature outlines this week, the union between the UK's Lovells and US firm Hogan & Hartson in May 2010 was the deal that kicked off the ensuing wave of consolidations. It was regarded as a smart, bold strategic move at the time, and little has happened since to counter this view. Indeed, the global regulatory clampdown on corruption that has gathered momentum since the deal was sealed makes the combination even more attractive given the two legacy firms' strengths in litigation and regulation.

Nevertheless, the firm has faced criticism, principally over the pace of its integration and the extent to which it has delivered on its stated ambition of improving its transactional practices in New York and London.

But perhaps Hogan Lovells' critics – both internal and external – are being too hard on the firm. Yes, maybe management underestimated quite how hard it would be to meld the two very distinct cultures of the legacy firms. But it can also point to some important strategic moves – including mergers in South Africa and Mexico – as well as headline mandates the constituent firms would have struggled to win on their own.

Crucially, the new management team – led by chief executive Steve Immelt and his deputy David Hudd – appears to have recognised it is now time for the firm to move into a more expansive, self-confident and client-facing phase. They can do so safe in the knowledge that their predecessors made a decent fist of the first bit – and that is no mean feat.