updated on 28 January 2020
The reasons that firms decide to merge are as varied as the firms themselves, but there are usually some key drivers – namely, the desire to expand, geographically or in terms of expertise, or to stay afloat. For the lawyers who find that the firm they joined is no longer the firm at which they work, there are normally a raft of opportunities– and maybe especially so for trainees.
Mergers can be an extremely effective way for firms to both expand and reduce their costs. Not surprisingly, therefore, you are never too far away from a story about a law firm merger – either contemplated, being negotiated or completed. The biggest merger of recent years is a great example of all the issues that are at play when firms join forces – the three-way combination of CMS, Nabarro and Olswang became official in 2017. Trading under the name CMS, the firm has become the sixth biggest by revenue in the United Kingdom and sixth biggest by headcount in the world.
More recently, in June 2019 Penningtons Manches merged with Thomas Cooper to form Penningtons Manches Cooper, a firm that boasts a leading M&A practice and the world’s fourth-largest real estate practice. And in 2018, the profession saw a major transatlantic merger when Berwin Leighton Paisner merged with US firm Bryan Cave. The deal has greatly expanded the new firm’s international reach – Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner now boasts 32 offices in 11 countries, employing 1,600 lawyers.
There has been plenty of other merger activity across the legal profession over the past couple of years, from international firms entering new markets to regional practices consolidating their positions. For an example of the former, see the 2017 launch of DWF in France through a merger with Heenan Paris, continuing its expansion outside the United Kingdom, while for an example of the latter look no further than Coffin Mew, which in 2018 cemented its position as a regional leader in the South of England by merging with Charles Lucas & Marshall.
Looking further back to 2016, key deals included the tie-up between Withy King and London firm Royds; a £250 million union of Irwin Mitchell and Thomas Eggar; and Addleshaw Goddard’s entry into the United States via its merger with Hunton & Williams. To get an even better sense of the pattern of activity over the past several years, see the very useful Jomati merger table. Bringing together the stats of publicly reported mergers involving UK-based law firms in The Lawyer 100, the list reveals that there were 14 mergers in 2015, 19 in 2016, 16 in 2017 and one so far in 2018.
What are some of the factors that lead firms to merge?
There is usually no one single reason that causes firms to merge – rather, it will be a unique set of conditions and aims that coalesce to draw them together. Nebulous? Perhaps! But here are some of the most common reasons why a merger might be considered:
Hanh Nguyen is an insolvency partner at Charles Russell Speechlys LLP. She is a dual-qualified solicitor (Sydney, NSW and England & Wales), joining Speechlys as an associate in 2010. She found herself becoming part of a newly expanded firm when Speechlys joined with Charles Russell in 2014. As she describes, there were a number of compelling reasons behind the move: “There was a desire to create the market-leading firm providing business law and private wealth advice internationally. That combined with the fact that the firms were similar in terms of their business ideals – albeit with different key strengths – meant that the integration would see two firms merge into one stronger and more diverse law firm.”
As Hanh notes, the most successful law firm mergers are those that combine two firms that have a shared vision and culture. So over and above the practical details and logistics of a law firm union – including, but not limited to, office location, IT integration, salary integration, redundancies – the firms need to ensure that they are on the same page in terms of some less quantifiable elements. Those factors might include their respective approach to: non-billable time; diversity and inclusion; pro bono work; and the importance of communication between the partnership and other staff. If the two firms take very different approaches to the above, it could be that the union is doomed. Hanh notes that over and above the “usual teething issues regarding different IT systems and office space”, the challenges of integration for Charles Russell and Speechlys were smoothed out because “the two firms had a similar work culture and ethos, which made it easier for the individuals to become part of one large team”.
What about when talks fail?
This can be publicly embarrassing for the firms involved, although most firms will be at great pains to explain it away using the best possible spin. It is the case that failure to merge can sometimes be simply the result of the pre-merger investigation and due diligence, and a realisation that the firms are not a good match – you could call it the very definition of an amicable split. Other reasons might lead to relations becoming more acrimonious, including an inability to agree on key elements of the deal. We can only imagine that there is sometimes a non-negotiable problem of senior figures vying for position or even so serious a personality clash that the deal cannot survive.
The Law Gazette noted in its feature article from May 2016 that in fact, most merger talks fail: “Recent failed talks include between the City’s Berwin Leighton Paisner and US firm Greenberg Traurig, or national practice Addleshaw Goddard and Scottish firm Maclay Murray & Spens. Viv Williams, a director at consultancy Ampersand Legal who has helped merge more than 150 firms in his career, confirms: “Every firm in the United Kingdom has talked to others about merging, but actually most merger talks break up.”
What are the specific benefits for clients?
Provided the merger has been implemented carefully, there are some clear benefits for clients – in fact, the merger will often be driven by the needs of those very same clients, who want their lawyers to be able to advise on the legal rights and obligations in other jurisdictions or cross-sector. To shore up that ability – and to hold onto their clients – firms may have identified that their best option is to combine with another firm in those areas (be they geographic or practice).
Having said that, LexisNexis published a blog in 2016 that discusses the ways in which clients can also suffer from mergers, particularly where the combining firms don’t manage the process carefully. Some firms focus too heavily on operational issues – eg, billing and IT systems – and fail to spend enough time in advance on “client strategy (eg, account management, conflicts management, practice development and industry focus) and a firm’s culture and people (eg, agreeing common working practices, keeping and developing its joint talent)”. This can leave clients dissatisfied and prone to look elsewhere for their legal services needs to be met.
The feeling seems to be that provided the proposed changes and the new reality are communicated effectively to the client, much of the sense of upheaval and disruption can be minimised. As with so much in life, communication is key! In the CMS/Nabarro/Olswang merger, an integration programme was put in place six months prior to the merger going live by an in-house management team, which minimised the sense of disruption.
What are the benefits for trainees?
There are many advantages for trainees; both those already at the merging firms and those who’ve been recruited but are yet to join. Some of those advantages include access to:
Hanh points out the following reasons that a merger can be good for trainees: “Most obviously, they will get to work with an expanded pool of clients and colleagues, including a wider range of partners with specialist areas, all of which allows for the development of knowledge and understanding in key areas. However, trainees may also find themselves with an increased number of peers – this could increase competition for places on qualification and for promotion post-qualification. Equally, it will depend on the extent to which individual practice areas merge or remain largely the same post-merger.”
One thing that might worry potential trainees is what happens if a firm announces it is to merge after you have been offered a training contract but before you start at the firm. Evidence suggests that most firms will try to honour pre-existing offers, but you may find yourself joining a firm that is different in shape and size to the one that you signed up for. Firms will be thinking about how to manage the transition in as smooth a way as possible, but there is likely to be an understandable feeling of upheaval and disjointedness. As ever though, the way you handle the unexpected is up to you – roll with the new set of circumstances and focus on the potential benefits, and you are likely to feel better about the new proposition. Resist the reality and put up obstacles, and things are likely to go less well.
For Hanh, being part of a merger as a junior lawyer brought about many professional benefits: “I had the opportunity to be promoted to the partnership in the first year following the merger and, as a result of the promotion, gained a better understanding of how the firm operates from a business perspective. I also had the opportunity to work with new colleagues in different practice areas across all the offices and the potential to add value to the firm’s existing clients.”
Josh Richman is LawCareers.Net’s senior editor.