At the end of last week an excellent new rumour hit town: that Eversheds and CMS Cameron McKenna were in merger talks to create a £580m firm.
Given the rate of consolidation in the legal market, the idea seemed eerily plausible, particularly after the Clyde & Co-Barlow Lyde & Gilbert and Beachcroft-Davies Arnold Cooper announcements last month.
I am duty-bound to say that the story is better described as a dollop of projection with a sprinkling of wish fulfilment on top. For there are sort-of denials from both firms. As in: No, we’re not in proper merger talks, but in this crazy world who knows what might happen? One source describes the encounter as “a bit of a showing of ankles”.
Despite another managing partner unkindly calling it “two drunks propping each other up at the bar”, CMS Eversheds is an arresting idea. The kneejerk derision that they attract from certain sections of the legal market is often unfair. It doesn’t help that both firms’ reputations as nice places to work have been damaged - in Eversheds’ case, over its handling of redundancies, and in Camerons’ case, over the deal with back-office outsourcer Integreon; much as Allen & Overy’s was when it announced it was moving functions to Belfast. (Memo to managing partners: legal folk memory lasts longer than you think.)
It’s easy for certain City types to jeer at the firms, but both have shown more strategic imagination than, say, Travers Smith or Macfarlanes.
Now that Eversheds has integrated its volume business into the firm and undergone a painful recovery period, it is considering US and City mergers. It has always wanted a City merger, so nothing new there; but with PEP at £555,000 and a client satisfaction rate that ought to be the envy of its rivals, it has never been so well-placed.
Camerons is more focused on international expansion, but it’s well-known that its German colleagues are agitating for more heft in London. However, it’s not just Camerons that Eversheds would have to woo, but the entire CMS network, which makes the proposition infinitely trickier.
So, Camerons and Eversheds: not quite dating, but definitely up for a dance. Time to dim the lights.
catrin.griffiths@thelawyer.com; www.twitter.com/lawyercatrin
Readers' comments (14)
OcockOff LLP | 8-Jul-2011 3:47 pm
Heh. Excellent work @ anonymous 4:21!
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Haha CC/Eversheds | 11-Jul-2011 8:33 pm
Eversheds "accept" a merger with CC. What planet are you living on that you would imply such an offer would ever be on a table for The Shed to accept. I don't have any affiliation to, or love for, CC but come on! What a crock of...
Wonder where u work - 'The Shed in the clouds'??
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 12-Jul-2011 3:34 pm
I've read the above with interest and surprise.
I would have thought it was obvious - if Clifford Chance were to want to merge with a UK law firm it would choose Dickinson Dees LLP.
After all, Dickinson Dees LLP likes to tell people that they are the "Clifford Chance of the North". They also have well regarded Stockton and York offices which could boost Clifford Chance's profitability.
Seriously, who else would get a look in?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 12-Jul-2011 8:58 pm
It would be interesting to see how the cultures of Dickinson Dees and Clifford Chance would inter-act following a merger.
For example, in Dickinson Dees it is permissible for staff to bring pets such as dogs into the office. Whereas at Clifford Chance such behaviour is frowned upon.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment