Growth Goals, Succession Strategy Drive Law Firm Merger Mania in Pa.
"Firms are aware that the merger market is stirred up, and most everybody is fielding inquiries," said Eric Seeger of Altman Weil.
January 11, 2019 at 04:52 PM
4 minute read
Whether by way of ambition or pressure, Pennsylvania firms were active in the legal merger market last year. And that enthusiasm is likely to continue this year, industry watchers said.
Of the 106 law firm mergers announced in 2018, according to law firm consultancy Altman Weil, 17 involved at least one Pennsylvania firm. (That includes one deal by Offit Kurman, which was founded in Maryland but has its largest office in Philadelphia.)
“We are seeing firms of all sizes clarifying their position on merger, even if that position is 'not now, not ever,'” Altman Weil principal Eric Seeger said. “Firms are aware that the merger market is stirred up, and most everybody is fielding inquiries.”
A lot of the Pennsylvania combinations involved a small firm being acquired, Seeger noted.
Philadelphia legal recruiter Robert Nourian, of Coleman Nourian, said continued strength in the economy has driven more dealmaking.
“It took a while for some of the effects of the recession to fade, and firms were gun-shy,” he said. But “when you have more confidence that work will continue to grow and your clients' needs will continue to grow, you're willing to seek to continue to do things that are among investment lines and strategic.”
Partnership demographics are a factor as well, Nourian said. With more baby boomer partners at small firms nearing retirement age, they're looking for viable succession plans.
Recruiter Frank D'Amore, of Philadelphia-area Attorney Career Catalysts, has noticed the same.
“Particularly with smaller firms, there are a lot of them where the founders are still there,” he said. “With the baby boomers moving into retirement … the number of them is pretty high. That also can be a trigger for consolidation.”
D'Amore added that leaders of smaller firms—those with about 75 lawyers or less—had some reticence in the past about pursuing mergers, but are opening up to the possibility now.
“While they're still cautious now, they feel their size, which they used to feel was an advantage, has become an impediment,” D'Amore said. General counsel are often looking for firms that can provide service across the country, he said, and some large firms have found ways to shrink the price disparity with their smaller competitors.
|More Mergers on the Way
Seeger, D'Amore and Nourian all said they expect the flurry of law firm combinations to continue this year in Pennsylvania and industrywide.
Already this year, two small firms in Hanover, Pennsylvania, were acquired by larger Central Pennsylvania firms. Two-lawyer Shultis Law became part of Chambersburg-based Salzmann Hughes, and two-lawyer Guthrie, Nonemaker, Yingst & Hart combined with Lancaster-based Barley Snyder.
“We will continue to see firms of all sizes making small acquisitions to bolster existing practice areas or add new capabilities,” Seeger said, as well as mergers driven by smaller firms aiming to expand their practice offerings.
There may be an increase in law firms dissolving too, Nourian said, for those small and midsize firms that seek mergers by necessity and are unsuccessful in completing a combination.
“With the caveat that certain geopolitical things or market things could pull back in sentiment … I think we'll see a continuation and marginal acceleration of movement we saw in 2018,” he said.
If the economy turns, Seeger said, a decrease in merger activity is likely, especially among large law firms. But at the same time, he said, “it could exacerbate the pain some smaller firms are feeling and cause them to take more of an interest in some combination.”
Still, if the market tightens, those firms that have recently added small offices by acquisition may feel the need to consolidate its smaller locations, he said.
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 AllPhiladelphia Bar Association Executive Director Announces Retirement
3 minute readPhila. Attorney Hit With 5-Year Suspension for Mismanaging Firm and Mishandling Cases
4 minute readMorgan & Morgan Looks to Grow Into Complex Litigation While Still Keeping its Billboards Up
6 minute readTrending Stories
- 1On the Move and After Hours: Brach Eichler; Cooper Levenson; Marshall Dennehey; Archer; Sills Cummis
- 2Review of Ex-parte orders by the Appellate Division
- 3'Confusion Where Previously There Was Clarity': NJ Supreme Court Should Void Referral Fee Ethics Opinion
- 4How Amy Harris Leverages Diversity to Give UMB Financial a Competitive Edge
- 5Pa. Judicial Nominee Advances While Trump Demands GOP Unity Against Biden Picks
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