Allen & O'Melveny or A&O&O? Name Game Fun Conceals The Insecurities Of A Generation
Less than 10 years ago eyebrows would have been raised if any magic circle member had held merger talks with a U.S. firm not eligible to wear white shoes. Not any more.
March 14, 2019 at 09:12 AM
4 minute read
"Allen Myers sounds like a 1970s porn star," says one top partner at a U.S. firm in London. Such is the interest in the merger talks between Allen & Overy and O'Melveny & Myers that the name appears to be open to public debate.
Understandable. This potential transatlantic merger discussion is the most important for a generation because it is likely to set the tone for the future of all the top U.K. firms.
It is the hot topic in restaurants, bars and meeting rooms across London and beyond, as the legal world contemplates its future.
A Legal Week Twitter poll has found readers are reluctant to see the A&O brand go, with more than four in 10 saying that should be the name of the merged firm, should a deal complete. Allen & O'Melveny was also popular, competing with Allen Myers. Hardly anyone likes O'Melveny & Allen. What other options are available? AOM or A&O&O?
The fact that there is even a debate about the name at all is telling, because for the first time it feels as though a deal really could happen. But the chatter tells us less about the marketing abilities of rival law firms and more about the potential implications a deal could have.
If it were to be successful, what would it mean for Linklaters and Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer? Would they really be able to keep a straight face while describing their plan of building up a New York presence organically?
In all likelihood, the pressure it would put on rivals would be immense and would probably even turn the heads of management at Latham & Watkins and Kirkland & Ellis. But there would be even bigger implications if the talks were to fail.
A&O's strategy would feel rudderless to say the least. Linklaters and Freshfields would also know, as if they needed any further evidence, that the era of being able to secure a decent transatlantic merger has well and truly passed.
Less than a decade ago, many would have thought that O'Melveny was a step down for A&O. In years gone by there has been talk of magic circle firms merging with one of the white-shoe firms, such as Sullivan & Cromwell or Davis Polk & Wardwell.
But a magic circle firm trying to merge with Davis Polk "is a bit like me trying to marry Beyonce", explains one middle-aged magic circle partner. "It's never going to happen."
Not only is that out of reach, but if A&O cannot even secure a deal with a mid-tier U.S. firm like O'Melveny, then perhaps it will mean that all decent deals are now out of reach.
Without the flexible remuneration structure nor the home market strength on offer to enable them to break into the U.S. in any meaningful way, U.K. firms would face the prospect of a long, gradual erosion of market share. One glance at the growth rates of U.S.-based firms in London in 2018 shows that they keep on getting more mandates.
This is not to say the deal would be better for A&O than for O'Melveny. A&O arguably has a superior brand and the U.S. firm faces its own challenges about future strategy, which this merger could go a long way to solving. But at least O'Melveny and its U.S. rivals do not have the same pressure of a ticking clock.
Rivals, especially those in the U.K., are watching A&O's progress intently. Behind the fun of the name game there is a nervousness that suggests, however unwillingly, they want this deal to succeed.
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 AllHSF Locks In Its American Dream. But What Will a U.S. Merger Mean For its Asia Practice?
Trending Stories
- 1Rudy Giuliani's Attorneys Seek Withdrawal in Debt Enforcement Case
- 2SEC, South Florida Developer Rishi Kapoor Reach Settlement
- 3Senate Democrats Advance 4th Circuit Pick Ryan Park’s Nomination
- 4Judge Rejects Meta’s Plea to Send FTC Antitrust Suit to Trash Heap
- 5How Have You Fared in 2024? Share Your Insights in the Managing Partners Survey
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