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
© 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 AllBest Practices for Conducting Workplace Investigations: A Legal and HR Perspective
9 minute readTrending Stories
- 1New York-Based Skadden Team Joins White & Case Group in Mexico City for Citigroup Demerger
- 2No Two Wildfires Alike: Lawyers Take Different Legal Strategies in California
- 3Poop-Themed Dog Toy OK as Parody, but Still Tarnished Jack Daniel’s Brand, Court Says
- 4Meet the New President of NY's Association of Trial Court Jurists
- 5Lawyers' Phones Are Ringing: What Should Employers Do If ICE Raids Their Business?
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.
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