Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Law Firm Mergers and Predictions for the Year 2020
2019 went down as another record year for law firm mergers.
According to law firm consultants, Altman Weil, Inc., 115 law firm mergers were announced last year. This number exceeds the record-breaking figure of 106 for 2018. But what do the numbers teach us? Did the tendency to merge apply to law firms across the board? Is the merger mania likely to continue in 2020? What was the impetus for record number of mergers? This article breaks down the available data to answer these questions and attempts to give us a glimpse into the future.
Geographic Expansion
The desire for geographic expansion appears to have been a predominant driving factor for merger and acquisition activity in 2019. Last year the South was the most popular destination for law firms seeking practices to acquire. Approximately 27% of the mergers involved a law firm in a Southern state. In 2018 the Middle Atlantic region attracted the most acquirers. The state with the largest number of firms announcing mergers was California, with nine, followed by New York at eight, and Florida with seven.
A surprising number of firms — six — were acquired from the State of Minnesota last year; four more than were acquired the previous year.
Mergers By Size
Smaller law firms tended to be a party to most large firm mergers in 2019. Last year a whopping 57% of mergers involved a law firm of two to five lawyers. The second most popular target for mergers had between six to 20 lawyers. The fewest number of mergers involved law firms with more than 100 partners. Five percent of mergers featured a merger partner with over 100 lawyers.
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
The Anti-Assignment Override Provisions
UCC Sections 9406(d) and 9408(a) are one of the most powerful, yet least understood, sections of the Uniform Commercial Code. On their face, they appear to override anti-assignment provisions in agreements that would limit the grant of a security interest. But do these sections really work?