Merged law firms focus on operations at the expense of client development, report says
Image from Shutterstock.
Most law firm mergers focus too much on operations and too little on client benefits, according to a new report by a consulting firm.
The report by Gulland Padfield says most law firms merge for defensive rather than strategic reasons, the Am Law Daily (sub. req.) reports. The focus then turns to operations such as billing and technology, rather than how to benefit from the combined client relationships, the report says.
The London-based Gulland Padfield based its report on interviews with management team members at 20 global and U.K. law firms that have merged in the last 18 months. The Am Law Daily spoke with Gulland partner James Edsberg, a report co-author.
“Making sure that everyone has the same email address isn’t what will determine whether a merger is successful,” Edsberg said. “The litmus test of any merger should be whether the combined firm can bring value to clients in a way that the old firms couldn’t on their own.”
The law firms interviewed by Gulland Padfield identified several factors that should be considered in a merger, including partner compensation, client billing rates and policies, the quality of business development and finances, and attitudes regarding nonbillable time.
