header-logo header-logo

Consolidation is on the way

26 January 2022
Issue: 7964 / Categories: Legal News , Profession
printer mail-detail

Nearly half of law firms are considering mergers and acquisitions (M&As), researchers have found

Some 47 of 100 law firms of varying sizes interviewed were considering M&A―nearly a quarter of them were already in talks, and 57% were ‘actively’ seeking a deal, with the rest of the firms at an earlier stage. Acquira Professional Services, which commissioned the research, published the results last week in its white paper, ‘Growth Agenda 2022: the new era of law firm M&A’.

The firms gave geographic expansion as their chief reason for considering M&A, followed by desires to expand their range of practice areas, scale-up and compete.

Those firms not looking at M&A said they don’t need to grow. Other reasons given were the cost of M&A (cited by 36%), the loss of control (30%), the risk involved (23%) and potential loss of identity (21%).

Asked how they will drive growth, most interviewees said they expect to invest in IT. Private equity investment was another popular option, with more than a third expecting to grow through this route, while about the same amount said they would rely on sales and marketing. Some 18% of the large firms were considering flotation, as were 9% of mid-sized and 4% of smaller firms. More than a quarter of large firms were looking to buy a non-legal business.

However, the white paper struck a cautious note, noting how ‘the few private equity firms interested in the legal market are generally looking at practices with non-traditional business models, such as subscription services which generate repeat business. They want to build scale. Any notion that it is an easy way for partners to cash out will send them running for the hills’.

It also highlighted one of the reasons mergers go wrong is they often start in an informal way, for example, through a chance meeting.

Jeff Zindani, Acquira managing director, said: ‘The findings back up the general sentiment in the market that greater consolidation is on the way. By embracing an M&A strategy, even on a modest scale, with the support of an expert adviser, market opportunities can be quickly realised.’

Issue: 7964 / Categories: Legal News , Profession
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Group partner joins Guernsey banking and finance practice

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

London labour and employment team announces partner hire

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Double partner appointment marks Belfast expansion

NEWS
The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) has not done enough to protect the future sustainability of the legal aid market, MPs have warned
Writing in NLJ this week, NLJ columnist Dominic Regan surveys a landscape marked by leapfrog appeals, costs skirmishes and notable retirements. With an appeal in Mazur due to be heard next month, Regan notes that uncertainties remain over who will intervene, and hopes for the involvement of the Lady Chief Justice and the Master of the Rolls in deciding the all-important outcome
After the Southport murders and the misinformation that followed, contempt of court law has come under intense scrutiny. In this week's NLJ, Lawrence McNamara and Lauren Schaefer of the Law Commission unpack proposals aimed at restoring clarity without sacrificing fair trial rights
The latest Home Office figures confirm that stop and search remains both controversial and diminished. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Parpworth of De Montfort University analyses data showing historically low use of s 1 PACE powers, with drugs searches dominating what remains
Boris Johnson’s 2019 attempt to shut down Parliament remains a constitutional cautionary tale. The move, framed as a routine exercise of the royal prerogative, was in truth an extraordinary effort to sideline Parliament at the height of the Brexit crisis. Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC dissects how prorogation was wrongly assumed to be beyond judicial scrutiny, only for the Supreme Court to intervene unanimously
back-to-top-scroll