Consolidation and Competition in 2012

The reports are in for 2011 on mergers and acquisitions in the law firm biz-- the pace is picking up-- and the prospects for 2012 look to be the same.  

US Mergers

Hildebrandt reports that 45 mergers that involved U.S. firms were completed last year, a 67% increase over 2010, with the Midwest being a locus of activity,  With 11 U.S. mergers already announced by the first week of 2012, almost double the number (6) announced at the same time a year ago, "merger activity appears to be heading back towards pre-recessionary levels which typically saw 55+ mergers per year... [W]e predict this trend will continue in 2012." Hildebrandt notes that by their tally mergers outside the U.S. jumped to 54 in 2011 compared to 44 and 48 in 2010 and 2009, respectively.

Altman Weil counts 60 law firm mergers and acquisitions announced in the United States in 2011, up 54% from 2010 and at the highest level since 2008, according to Altman Weil MergerLine, while the number of cross-border mergers involving US firms declined in 2011 after increases in 2009 and 2010.  “We think the trend toward larger deals will continue and the pace of mergers could accelerate in 2012.” 

The largest merger in 2011 between two U.S.-based firms was the combination of Kilpatrick Stockton and Townsend Townsend and Crew to create Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton, followed by the acquisition by Edwards Angell Palmer & Dodge, a 500-lawyer Boston-based firm, of Wildman, Harrold, Allen & Dixon, a 160-lawyer Chicago firm, creating Edwards Wildman Palmer effective October 1. 

Faegre & Benson, headquartered in Minneapolis, merged with Indianapolis-based Baker & Daniels to form nearly-800-lawyer Faegre Baker Daniels on January 1.  Bryan Cave, a 900-lawyer firm based in St. Louis, acquired 59-lawyer Denver-based Holme Roberts & Owen as of January 1.  Ice Miller in Indianapolis also combined with Schottenstein Zox & Dunn in Columbus, Ohio effective January 1. Bingham McHale, an Indianapolis-based law firm, merged with Louisville-based Greenebaum Doll & McDonald to form 250-lawyer Bingham Greenebaum Doll effective January 2. 

So the industry must be starting to take off again, right? 

What is not always apparent from the data is why those mergers are taking place. In some cases,  the acquisitions are of law firms that were in deep trouble. For example,  Bryan Cave acquired Holme Roberts & Owen after it suffered a string of partner defections and staff layoffs, while Arnold & Porter merged with San Francisco’s Howard Rice after Howard Rice had lost nearly half its lawyers over the preceding decade. The negotiation of the Edwards Wildman Palmer merger has been scrutinized recently for having been tainted by the personal agenda of a managing partner, since replaced, rather than having been executed with the best interest of the firm in mind.

So when the predictions are for more mergers in 2012, one has to wonder if that is an indication of further distress as much as growth in the industry. Dissolutions of law firms took place throughout 2011, starting with Howrey LLP and continuing with smaller and midsize firms throughout the year. Clearly a lot of firms are having a tough time adjusting to the new marketplace, with some firms not even making it to the acquisition stage.

Asia Arising

Perhaps the greatest event in the law firm merger market recently is one that has largely gone unheralded-- the announcement of the merger of China’s King & Wood and Australia’s Mallesons to be effective March 1. Becoming the largest law firm based in the Asia-Pacific region, with more than 1,800 lawyers, King & Wood Mallesons will be a combination of one of China's largest law firms with one of Australia’s biggest, most innovative firms. But that is not where the Chinese are stopping. The two largest law firms in China, Dacheng and Yingke, are opening offices in London and a small Chinese firm, Broad & Bright,  is in merger discussions with Clifford Chance. Has the rest of the international legal world taken note of this wave of Chinese competition starting to lap at its shores in this year of the Dragon, the most auspicious of all of the Chinese years to start a business or execute a strategy?

Where does all that leave us?  As Patrick Lamb of the Valorem Law Group reminds clients: "The turmoil in law firms created by merger talk, rumors of merger talks, rumors of departures, rumors of de-equitization or personnel reductions DOES affect the work on your matters.  Don’t be naive enough to think your work is immune!"

Where we are is in a quickly expanding legal services universe that no longer revolves around the pyramid that you grew up with.  It is a universe that requires innovative, forward-thinking strategies to first identify your market, build an effective delivery system to keep and expand your client list and finally adapt your practice to the ever-changing future.

Practical Practice Tips: Taking Control of Your Schedule

So here is the typical routine:  clients that demand not overnight but one-hour turnaround, associates that don't hand in assignments on time, working into the night to deliver a reasonable product (see the first two), phone conferences scheduled for 6 am, which turn out to be at 3 am in California, where you are that week, except that the number you have is wrong so you are still late to the call after getting up at 2 am, the managing partner on your case repeatedly for missing committee meetings or failing to finish firm administration projects, a significant other who complains about the unfair burden he/she has to carry while you sit in meetings at wee hours, kids or other family members who chide, ok snarl, about how infrequently you make it to family events, no consistent exercise since last year in spite of your second new year's resolution, drinking a little too much on the late side and getting up a little too early (or too late) on the early side, all of which can coalesce into an angry showdown with any one or more of these players--unless you succeed in your attempts to avoid them all.

Does that sound like your life or someone else's you know?

The first step in taking control of your life is being able to actually see how your life is currently organized.  Can you accurately say when you arrive for work and leave most days and how much time you spend evenings on work? And how much you spend on personal and/or family time? Do you shave off a little time when you tell the family what time to expect you or when you estimate time charges for the client? Are you plagued by back-to-back meetings, half of which seem unnecessary? Do you admit to friends and family what your workweek really looks like or do you downplay the time demands and the stress?

Pretend you are talking about someone else and write down your real schedule for all aspects of your life, your actual conflicts and stresses and, while you're at it, your free time (short list).  Would your colleagues and significant other/s agree?

Once you can honestly see your life, the second step is coming to understand whether your life is the way it is on purpose.  Or because you are unconscious of your choices. Do you honestly know which parts of your workday are enjoyable and which are not?  Are you always apologizing to others for those early phone calls, swearing under your breath at how exhausting they are? Or is it possible that you actually like how they get you up and off to a good start on a busy day?  Make you feel important that others need your input before they can proceed? 

So next to your typical day's activities, write down whether they are enjoyable (possibly another short list) or not, and to what degree for each--neutral, somewhat, very.

Now comes the time to figure out how you can reduce the amount of time spent on the most unpleasant parts of your schedule, and increase the amounts of time spent on the most pleasant ones.

Which is not to say that your choice can be to bypass all the hard personal stuff, lob off on your associates the difficult client stuff or be excused from getting enmeshed in the partnership stuff.  But you can make your preferences known as a first step to finding a balance between what we have to do and what we want to do.

You would think that lawyers with their reputations for combativeness would be the first to say what they want and how they want it.  But the reality is quite different.  Most lawyers loath confrontation, particularly in what they consider to be non-critical areas like scheduling, and thereby deprive the players in their lives of important feedback on what would make their lives better, and therefore their work better. Or, they take it for so long, victims of incompetence that they are, and then lash out in an angry fit.

You don't have to be the 300 pound gorilla to start putting some order into your life.  You simply have to think about possible alternatives, articulate those to the people involved and then take steps to move towards those alternatives that seem workable.

Of course it's helpful to know the other players' proclivities--another exercise in awareness.  Does your secretary sometimes switch numbers in a date or phone number?  Does your associate take long lunches and work later at night? Do your clients prefer face-to-face instead of telephone/email advice? Is the managing partner fond of early morning pow-wows?

Once you have others' proclivities clear, start informing everyone of your preferences.  Have you given your assistant clear guidelines on when you want phone calls, who is to be included, who should proofread the meeting invites, and when to give reminders?  Have you explained to your associates that due dates are sacrosanct and while everything can be discussed, something responsive has to be on your desk at a certain time of the day in any event? Do you explore with clients several possible times and dates for meetings or conference calls or do you feel you have to jump on the first suggestion? Have you told the committee chair or managing partner the best dates and times for you to meet? Here's one:  have you worked out with your significant other if there is a day during the week that s/he would prefer that you make it home earlier than midnight?

Then you have to abide by the guidelines and boundaries you yourself have asked for--no approving a late meeting after a day of meetings, no excusing a 3 am phone call, no extension for the associate's due date, even if you may have to replace him/her.  And you can't hit the reschedule button less than 24 hours before that special home date you've set up for the week.

If you don't affirmatively provide guidelines and boundaries to the players in your life, your staff, colleagues, clients and family will push and push until they meet resistance.  It's like ballroom dancing--a good partner gives some resistance to the other person to lean against--and to know how far to go. If you don't provide any resistance, you could and probably should get mowed down.

The first part of this endeavor is all in the mind--building an accurate awareness.  The second part is in the muscle--keeping promises to yourself and others.  While communicating your way through it all.

The key here is to be living on purpose and not by default.  Yes, everyone has to make compromises and your life will not suddenly be a bed of roses, but any small improvements in how you feel your life is lived will make you more empowered and productive and the people you deal with more supportive and engaged. 

Profitability in 2012--or Not?

One of the obligations of commentators at this time of year is to give an end-of-year roundup and a new year prognostication. So let's start with profitability, a subject dear to all our  hearts.

Citi Private Bank's Law Firm Group serves some 600 law firms and 58,000 lawyers in the United States and the United Kingdom, and surveys them quarterly about their financial situation. The most recent survey results-- for the third quarter of last year-- are skewed toward AmLaw 100 firms – “44 Am Law 1–50 firms, 36 Am Law 51–100 firms, 49 Second Hundred firms, and 54 additional firms"-- but nonetheless give a pretty interesting picture about the law business and its profitability in 2011 with indications for what 2012 holds.

Citi's conclusions:  As a result of work put on hold during the third quarter (and therefore unbillable) and intimations of a continuing decline in demand in the fourth quarter, Citi projects that PPEP for 2011 will fall to low-to mid-single-digit growth--less than 2010's 7.5%, and that 2012 will get off to a rocky start.

For the details: Citi found that law firm collections for the quarter were strong, but expenses continued to rise at a faster rate than earnings. Perhaps more disturbing is the report that corporate demand for legal services continued to decline for the third consecutive quarter, with WIP also declining. 

"Cumulative growth in demand for the first nine months was 1.5 percent, down from 1.8 percent during the first six months. This indicates that growth in demand slowed to only 0.9 percent for the third quarter...The slowdown has hit Am Law 50 firms... particularly hard."

Because there is simply less demand, income partners and of counsel are working fewer hours, while equity partners and associates continue to carry the ball. At the same time, leverage is declining generally, particularly the ratio of associates, who carry a higher profit margin, so the pyramid system only survives in theory. 

Citi went on to note that rate increases remained steady at 3.7% and realizations were strong.  But it also cautioned that:

"Expenses, which had already risen by 4.7 percent during the first half of 2011, continued to gain momentum during the third quarter, as they have now increased 5 percent across the industry for the first nine months of this year. This was driven by a continued increase in operating expenses—and in compensation expenses, since we saw a slight uptick in head count during the third quarter, likely due to the entry of first-year associates."

Obviously, with rates increasing by 3.7% and expenses increasing by 5%, most firms are slowly losing ground on both the profitability and productivity fronts.

"Looking at the 100 most profitable firms from 2001–2010 in our database, we saw a discernable decline in the percentage of associates represented in the leverage composition and a significant growth in the income partner, counsel, and of counsel categories. The result is a much more expensive leverage model, which would be fine if these more expensive lawyers were as productive as equity partners and associates, but they are not. In looking at average annual lawyer productivity from 2001 to 2010, income partners and counsel worked about 150 hours less than equity partners and associates."

"This modest increase in associate head count, combined with the slowdown in demand in the third quarter, translated into a decline in productivity gains—from 1.6 percent growth for the first six months of 2011 to 0.9 percent growth for the first nine months."

Collections were so strong in the third quarter that revenue growth outpaced expense growth, the reverse of the mid-year situation, so profit margin pressure was eased for the moment.  However,"the push for collections...along with the slowdown in demand, resulted in a significant slowing in inventory growth... " with WIP at " 3.6 percent for the first nine months (versus a cumulative growth rate of 6.3 percent for the first six months). The last time we saw the third-quarter inventory growth rate slowing from the first-half rate was in 2008." And the obvious implication for 2012 first quarter revenues is not pretty.

The result of these trends, Citi notes, is flat to negative equity partner growth in virtually all market segments and a preference for bringing in laterals over making internal promotions. (More on the state of lateral hiring in a future entry.) 

Hildebrandt's quarterly "Peer Monitor" index for the third quarter of 2011 dropped 6 points to 56 (anything below 65 is deemed a negative operating environment)– breaking a string of three consecutive upward quarters. 

"While rates strengthened slightly, demand growth weakened. Most significantly, the rise in expenses continues to accelerate. In the third quarter, increases in expenses ran well ahead of slowing revenue growth, sharply curtailing profitability.  Growth in demand for legal services was positive, but slowed to 0.8 percent, its weakest reading so far this year. Rates firmed slightly, up 3.5 percent compared with the same period a year ago. But the worrisome trend in expenses that PMI has been tracking continues to worsen. Both headcount and overhead expenses rose to their highest levels of the year. In short, the market continues to grow – albeit at a lethargic pace. But expenses will need to be brought under control if demand does not pick up. Achieving topline growth and balanced expense controls will be the key themes for firms for the balance of 2011 and into 2012."

"Following widespread cost reductions in 2009 and 2010 (reflecting primarily significant reductions in headcount), expense growth turned positive early this year. As 2011 has worn on, costs have steadily accelerated to the point where they are now easily outpacing both demand and rate growth, thus impacting profitability. Until recently, firms had generally been doing a good job of balancing their headcount against slowly growing demand. But firms have stepped up their hiring in recent months in a modest return to traditional seasonal hiring patterns. While firms have been hiring, however, demand has slowed as the year has progressed, widening the gap between law firm capacity and available work. Whether this trend continues will depend on the performance of the broader economy and whether we see continued recovery in litigation and transactional work."

While in this survey, stated rates were up a comparable 3.5%, "realized rates have resumed the long‐term downward trend that has been in place since 2008, and reached another all‐time low in the third quarter. A similar story is unfolding in collections. Following a slight rise earlier this year, net collected realizations fell to a new all‐time low of 85.4 percent."

Some of these themes were evident in the results of The American Lawyer's ninth annual survey of law firm leaders, as summarized below:

"Only 20% of respondents expect to see revenue growth in their corporate practices next year, compared to more than one-third of respondents last year. And clients are taking longer to pay their bills, according to 43% of the respondents. Billing rates are continuing to rise, with 93% of firms expecting to increase rates by 5% or less.

Cautiously optimistic, firms are holding steady on the size of their first-year associate classes, with 58% keeping their class size the same as in 2011. More than one-third of respondents expect to reduce their equity partnership ranks and 49% of firms have made efforts to align partner compensation with a willingness to cooperate in new initiatives such as project management.

Leaders are not as optimistic about profits per partner as they were last year. The majority (58%) of survey respondents expects PPP to grow 5% or less, which is higher than the 41% who responded last year. A healthy 26%, however, expect profits to increase by more than 5%, although this is down considerably from last year’s 38%."

For even more confirmation on the bleak 2012 growth outlook, here is Goldman Sachs' Chief Economist predicting that 2012 will see average global GDP growth of 3% and US GDP growth of 2.5% or less, with early 2012 growth in the US particularly sluggish--slower than the last half of 2011.

An AmLaw Daily Business Review article published in mid-2011 to which Muir contributed (and which you may have to upgrade your membership in order to read), discussed the big differences in profit margin among the various AmLaw 100 firms. A five-year analysis (spanning the boom year of 2007 as well as the bust of 2009) "shows a striking chasm between the highest- and lowest-margin performers,"  ranging from 63% for Wachtell and 62% for Quinn Emanuel to 19% and 22% for Edwards Angell and Squire Sanders, respectively.

What did that analysis find distinguished high profit margins from low?

  • Under-leveraging, of both associates and non-equity partners--those firms with higher than average profit margins in any given year (including the booms) had lower than average associate leverage, with an inverse correlation in leverage the higher the profitability went. Similarly, lower numbers of non-equity partners translated into higher profit margins, with a high of 46% compared to a low of 27%.
  • Low rates of lateral hires--those with the most restraint in lateral hiring were in the top quartile of profit margins (with fewer than 4% lateral hires), while those in the bottom quartile laterally hired an average of 18% of their equity partners, with the three firms with the largest percentage of lateral partners (K&L Gates, SNR Denton and Duane Morris)reporting profit margins of only 26-27%. 
  • A global presence while limiting non-strategic offices--those firms with large numbers of offices tended to have lower margins (34%) than those with only a few (46%), unless those offices were mostly outside of the US, in which case margins went up (to 41%).

So in terms of profitability, we have a bleak growth prognosis ahead while the old saws about how to improve profitability are proving wrong. 

Last year at this time, our entry on Where Will Profits Come From in 2011? concluded by saying what remains true today:

"The writing on the wall is pretty clear  Profits are unlikely to come from general demand in the market.  And there is only so much of your expenses and partners that  you can cut and still survive as a thriving firm."

If your firm is one of those that are trying to sail through these tough times using outdated business development and people management approaches, the waters ahead look pretty treacherous. Now is the time to embrace that scary word--innovation--and begin understanding how to achieve a new law practice that fits the new economy.

Freud and Emotions

In honor of the endings and beginnings at this time of the year and the personal and professional resolutions that each of us aspire to for the future, it is fascinating to look to the life of the founder of modern psychology, Sigmund Freud. A recent entry in "The People's Therapist," a blog by a former S&C associate, Will Meyerhofer, who is now a therapist to lawyers, recounts some interesting information on Freud's relationship to strong emotions, which is summarized below.

Oliver Sacks notes in his book "Musicophilia: Tales of Music and the Brain" that Freud was known to not like music, quoting his nephew, Harry, who claimed Freud "despised" music.

Freud himself wrote about his reaction to music in the introduction to "The Moses of Michelangelo":

"I am no connoisseur in art...nevertheless, works of art do exercise a powerful effect on me, especially those of literature and sculpture, less often of painting...[I] spend a long time before them trying to apprehend them in my own way, i.e. to explain to myself what their effect is due to. Wherever I cannot do this, as for instance with music, I am almost incapable of obtaining any pleasure. Some rationalistic, or perhaps analytic, turn of mind in me rebels against being moved by a thing without knowing why I am thus affected and what it is that affects me."

His friend, Theodor Reik, wrote that Freud feared giving himself over to the mysterious effects of music on his emotions. Reik felt that Freud's resistance to music amounted to:

"[a] turning-away...[an] act of will in the interest of self-defense...[and the] more energetic and violent, the more the emotional effects of music appeared undesirable to him. He became more and more convinced that he had to keep his reason unclouded and his emotions in abeyance."

Let's see.  Super-analytic type who is uncomfortable with strong emotions determines to not let himself "give in" to those emotions, but to remain as fiercely rational as possible. Sound like anyone you know?

While it is reassuring to know that even the grand man of psychology struggled with understanding emotions that overwhelmed him, his strategy of dealing with them is less than heartening.  It is no wonder that when Leonard Woolf, along with his wife Virginia, visited Freud in London late in his life, Woolf described Freud as "a half-extinct volcano... sombre, suppressed, reserved."

Only a few months later, at the age of 83, Freud arranged for a morphine overdose to end his life.

Sometimes the hardest thing to do is the challenge that yawns most scarily right in front of us, the one we least understand and most want to avoid.

Meyerhofer points out that "the word 'freude' in German means 'joy.' The word 'dream' comes from the Middle English word 'dreme,' which means 'joy' and 'music.'"  He suggests that Freud may have retreated into joyful musical dreams at night, even if he wasn't able to embrace them during the day. 

Perhaps there is a hint in this etymology as to why Freud was so driven by his fascination with deconstructing dreams, dreams which like music reflect abstractions of emotions that he personally couldn't fully understand or give himself up to. If only analysis and rationality could provide all the answers.

Another rift on the etymology is that Freud possibly never truly lived up to his name because he wasn't open to the full panoply of emotion, wasn't able to experience the roller coaster that  both plummets us into the depths but also raises us up to the highest heights--a mysterious and sometimes painful ride that nonetheless informs every aspect of our feelings and ultimately our intelligence.