“Don’t merge to make costs savings”, says head of newly merged City firm

Print This Post

28 January 2015


Carter: pre-merger "flirtation" was "very useful"

Carter: pre-merger “flirtation” was “very useful”

Law firms should not view mergers as a way of making costs savings, James Carter, managing partner of Charles Russell Speechlys, has warned.

“Economies of scale will at best pay for the costs of merging over the next one or two years,” Mr Carter said. “If you’re going for costs savings, you’re not going to achieve it.”

Mr Carter said the aim of a merger should be to grow the combined firm’s top line through “strength in depth” and a stronger client base. “What you save at the bottom will just cover your costs”.

Speaking at the launch of a report on law firm mergers by City firm Fox Williams and Byfield Consultancy, Mr Carter said mergers among the top 50-200 firms were driven mainly by the “need to improve profitability and fee pressures” from clients.

Error, group does not exist! Check your syntax! (ID: 14)

He said mergers by the top 25-50 law firms centred more on pressure to provide the full “range of services”, while mergers by the biggest practices were driven by international factors.

Mr Carter, who was managing partner of Speechly Bircham before the firm merged with Charles Russell in November last year, described how the firm previously had a “flirtation” with another law firm nine months ago.

He said this was “very useful” in identifying the key merger issues for partners, such as restrictive covenants and different attitudes to debt funding.

“It allowed me to write a list of 10 key issues I thought were relevant to the partners at a very early stage,” Mr Carter said. “It was then about ticking off the issues and making sure nothing would come back to the partnership six months after the merger,” he said.

Mr Carter added that it was important for firms to be “honest about strengths and weaknesses” during the merger process, including the abilities of partners and departments.

“Listen to the other side and understand why they do things in the way they do. There are a lot of historic reasons as to why firms may do things in a certain way. If you get under their skin of firms, you are less likely to reach an impasse on issues which should have been dealt with at an early stage.”

Earlier, Tina Williams, chair and head of professional practices at Fox Williams, said mergers were driven by “more for less” demands by clients, reductions in the size of their panels and by globalisation, where it was “very attractive” for clients to have a small number of firms working across all jurisdictions.

Ms Williams added that mergers were also an attempt to respond to competition by market “disruptors” such as the top four accountants.

“Many of the top 200 firms have depended on a steady supply of work from accountancy practices which will come to a very abrupt end. To compete firms will have to grow and develop their in-house expertise.”

Tags: , , ,



One Response to ““Don’t merge to make costs savings”, says head of newly merged City firm”

  1. James is right and made a good presentation yesterday.
    What many merger candidates do not appreciates is the amount of time required at the beginning of the planning process, a minimum of 3 months and could be longer, as much of this time is spent trying to work out the benefits of a merger. This starts with in depth discussions with the partners to ascertain their requirements and this information will help shape the decision and search for a merger partner.
    You will also need a dedicated team to work on this project and some may have to give up some client facing work.

  2. Eric Golding on January 28th, 2015 at 9:55 am

Leave a comment

* Denotes required field

All comments will be moderated before posting. Please see our Terms and Conditions

Legal Futures Blog

Going social

Derek Fitzpatrick Clio

Legal professionals, as communicators, serve a crucial role in social conversations, but have not been quick to adopt a strong presence on social media. Many lawyers are reluctant to start a social media profile as they don’t foresee any benefits to having one. The bottom line is that lawyers won’t get clients from social media if they are not using it. With 62% of adults having a Facebook account, your clients – and competitors – are using social media and you can no longer afford to treat it as an afterthought in the digital age.

December 2nd, 2016