Law Firms Then and Now and the Importance of The Legal Intelligencer
Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney, founded just seven years after The Legal Intelligencer, is one of the longest-standing and prosperous law firms in the commonwealth of Pennsylvania.
December 08, 2018 at 02:00 PM
5 minute read
Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney, founded just seven years after The Legal Intelligencer, is one of the longest-standing and prosperous law firms in the commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Throughout the years, both The Legal and Buchanan Ingersoll have seen the legal industry evolve far beyond what either of their founders could have imagined. And both have successfully transformed their approach to legal service delivery.
History of Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney
Buchanan's roots began in Pittsburgh in 1850, when Moses Hampton and his son set up a legal shop in Pittsburgh. The present firm began to take shape at the turn of the century with William Watson Smith and John B. Gordon. In 1912, they were joined by John G. Buchanan, a highly revered appellate lawyer and, several years later, by Frank B. Ingersoll, a corporate finance attorney.
Over the next few decades, the firm enjoyed steady growth, but truly began to prosper in the 1950s. Over the last two decades, the firm has reaped the benefits from several significant mergers, including tax specialists Silverstein and Mullens in 1999; the international intellectual property firm of Burns, Doane, Swecker & Mathis in 2005; Klett Rooney Lieber & Schorling in 2006, which gave the firm its present-day name; and Fowler White Boggs in 2014, one of the largest mergers in the country that year. The firm grew from 25 lawyers in one office in its infancy to today's count of 450 lawyers and government professionals across 17 offices. Buchanan Ingersoll played an instrumental role and continues to be a transformative force in advancing regional, state and national clients in the areas of financial services, health care, life sciences and energy.
Changes in the Legal Industry
Over the past several decades, the legal industry has experienced a number of changes that have impacted lawyers, firms and clients alike. Among the most significant changes is the rapid and tremendous growth in the size and geographic reach of law firms through mergers, acquisitions and robust lateral hiring sprees—a trend that will likely continue.
One of the drivers of firm growth is the demand for specialization of practices to meet client needs. The era of the generalist attorney is over as clients increasingly seek lawyers with specific industry and transactional experience and niche specialties. Because expertise matters, the shift to specialization is now prevalent throughout much of the legal profession—something associates learn even before they graduate from law school.
The legal industry has also experienced and benefited greatly from a concerted effort to increase the number of female and diverse lawyers, especially in partner and leadership roles. At Buchanan, our commitment to diversity and inclusion is woven into every facet of the firm, from associate recruitment to promotions and lateral hires. We have received a number of accolades, including being one of 27 firms in the nation which has achieved “Mansfield Rule Certification Plus” status for 2018. Throughout the legal industry, the many benefits of fostering a culture of inclusion and diversity are finally being embraced and championed.
Undoubtedly, the legal industry as a whole has been truly revolutionized by technology and innovation—from the simple to the more advanced. And, the pace of change has quickened in recent years. While technology has made the practice of law easier—through streamlining internal and external processes, expanding ways to provide better client service, enabling greater document security and automation, allowing for seamless collaboration across offices, greatly improving efficiencies and much more—it has also appropriately raised client expectations, increased competition and opened the door to industry disruptors. As a result, technology is making all of us better lawyers by enabling us to expand our offerings and deliver the highest level service and value to existing and potential clients.
Finally, the demands and expectations of clients has evolved significantly and law firms are now engaging with clients who have become much more sophisticated consumers of legal services. They are more educated and direct about what they want from their law firms, well-informed and astute about their buying power and guided by robust data analytics. As a result, firms are adapting and continually improving legal processes and attitudes about how best to meet heightened client expectations. Competition for work is high and will only continue to increase as time goes on.
Impact of The Legal Intelligencer
As a firm founded in Pennsylvania, The Legal Intelligencer has been a constant in our professional lives. Since our beginnings, lawyers across the state have relied on “The Legal” for timely and important information about noteworthy cases, current legal industry trends, as well as an important outlet for firms to share their newsworthy developments and thoughts about the business of law to the broader legal community. Just as law firms have transformed over the years, so has The Legal—whether it's crucial e-alerts and breaking news, digital access or in-depth stories about lawyers, cases, firms and more—always providing immediate and welcomed value to our business.
The Legal was, is and will remain woven into the daily fabric of any lawyer's life. Here's to the next great 175 years together!
Joseph A. Dougherty is CEO and managing shareholder of Buchanan, Ingersoll & Rooney. His number-one mission is ensuring that clients receive the highest quality legal services, at the best value, and that the firm's rigorous client service standards are satisfied. He is also responsible for growing the firm, hiring the best and brightest lawyers, effectively counseling clients and continually advocating for the firm's “client-first” approach. Dougherty's practice primarily focuses on assisting clients with post-employment disputes, often involving the enforcement and defense of employment agreements, restrictive covenants, trade secrets and the protection of competitively sensitive business information.
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
© 2025 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 AllVisa Revocation and Removal: Can the New Administration Remove Foreign Nationals for Past Advocacy?
6 minute readFeasting, Pledging, and Wagering, Philly Attorneys Prepare for Super Bowl
3 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Trump's DOJ Delays Releasing Jan. 6 FBI Agents List Under Consent Order
- 2Securities Report Says That 2024 Settlements Passed a Total of $5.2B
- 3'Intrusive' Parental Supervision Orders Are Illegal, NY Appeals Court Says
- 4Federal Laws Also Preempt State's Swipe Fee Law on Out-of-State Banks, Judge Rules
- 5Judge Grills DOJ on Trump’s Birthright Citizenship Executive Order
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.