10 Critical Challenges in Negotiating a Successful Law Firm Merger
There are common, but not commonly understood, problems that keep mergers from benefiting everyone involved.
July 19, 2018 at 08:35 PM
3 minute read
The original version of this story was published on The American Lawyer
1. The Business Case
- What will we do differently after the merger in order to be more successful? Just having more resources rarely means that you will use them effectively.
- Which partners will lead those efforts and be accountable for specific actions and specific results? Just as importantly, have those partners led similar efforts before, and demonstrated their success (beyond just developing a large personal client base)?
- In order to make this merger successful, are we expecting cultural shifts and behaviors that we haven't been able to implement before?
2. Lost in Process
- Identify and resolve the big issues first, so you don't waste months negotiating a merger that has no chance of success.
- Organize the discussions into three sequential but overlapping components: business case, deal structure (term sheet), and integration. Of those three, the business case and integration efforts will determine the success of the merger, far more so than the deal structure or term sheet.
- Keep in mind the one fact that separates mediocre deals from the most highly successful: Focus on the specific activities you will do together, and, wherever needed, acknowledge how those are different or more difficult than your past actions. Verify with clients whether they honestly see real value in your combination. If your integration teams keep talking hypothetically about what you could do, but don't get specific in terms of who/when/how, you are well down the path of creating yet another mediocre, underperforming merger. The worst combinations are almost always characterized by a lack of cultural and market position progression, and a lack of actual teamwork between predecessor firms.
- Don't be afraid to walk away. Too many firm leaders find themselves negotiating terms for six months, on a marginal combination, but keep pushing forward because they fear they will look foolish if they have invested too much time and don't produce a merger. If you handle the process right, bad deals should die after one to three meetings and die for all the right reasons.
3. Don't Put Off the Hard Issues 4. Conflicts, Conflicts, Conflicts 5. No Magic Beans
- The merger of two middle-market, midsize firms only creates a large middle-market firm, not a dominant market leader. Too many firms confuse cause with correlation when it comes to firm size or market position.
- Firms with a poor track record of cross-office cooperation and cross-selling almost always become a larger dysfunctional firm, rather than a highly integrated, well-functioning team. If your historic cross-selling efforts were largely instigated by your clients, rather than by your lawyers, the odds are you aren't going to capitalize on the opportunities created by a merger unless you face up to fundamental shifts in your culture.
6. Not Too Big, Not Too Small, Just Right 7. The 20 Percent Rule Has Been Muddied 8. Open Yourself Up 9. You Are as Well Known for Your Worst Lawyer as Your Best 10. Lawyers Think Term Sheets; Successful Leaders Think Integration and Strategy Blane R. Prescott is a consultant with MesaFive LLC, a specialized management consulting firm serving law firms and in-house counsel in North America, Asia and Europe. Contact MesaFive at [email protected].
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 AllDon’t Settle for the Minimum: Finding Constitutional Claims Closer to Home
7 minute readSeven Rules of the Road for Managing Referrals To/From Other Attorneys, Part 1
7 minute readNew Research Study Predicts Continued Growth for Generative AI in Legal
6 minute readThe Moving Goalposts of Overtime Exemption: Texas Judge Invalidates 2024 Salary Threshold Rule
5 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Friday Newspaper
- 2Judge Denies Sean Combs Third Bail Bid, Citing Community Safety
- 3Republican FTC Commissioner: 'The Time for Rulemaking by the Biden-Harris FTC Is Over'
- 4NY Appellate Panel Cites Student's Disciplinary History While Sending Negligence Claim Against School District to Trial
- 5A Meta DIG and Its Nvidia Implications
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