Dickinson Dees and Bond Pearce in talks to create £92m firm

  • Print
  • Comments (53)

Readers' comments (53)

  • Oh dear. Announcing merger talks before even looking at the books. It's pretty clear that desperation is driving this process for both parties.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • The disco is about to shut and desperation is in the air.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • @Anonymous | 12-Sep-2012 11:43 am

    Announcing that merger talks are taking place can be a smart move if the news looked likely to leak. Better to control the story than allow rumours in the press. This is a nice, clear joint statement that will help the talks.

    And the comment about 'desperation' is pointlessly negative and frankly just Troll nonsense. The merger looks sensible and will probably give the combined groups of partners a lot better platform to market from.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • I think this is fab news. Both firms need this to move forward.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • It is no problem for PR Guru to refer to my comment as being troll nonsense as I am not sensitive.

    To describe oneself as 'Guru' smacks of pretentiousness.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Interesting move to announce first - good point about message control.

    It hardly looks like a desperation move - they look like a perfect match (statistically) and neither firm is in trouble - if anything, they have both shown modest improvements in the last year. This should be exciting for their clients.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • So Dickinson Dees's PR team have spung into action. Is anyone fooled by anon@2.02pm saying "this will be exciting for clients"?

    No. This is yet another media fail (like Dickinson Dees's recent attempt to turn Wikipedia into an advertising hoarding, as reported by pther parts of the legal press).

    This merger really reaks of desperation. Two minor firms who are similarly disappointing in terms of performance in offices at different ends of the country. As for their PR Dept labelling people who have a view as "trolls", this is one example of why the firm has become so unpopular in recent years (despite the sterling efforts of Blair & Marshall to stop the rot).

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • @Anonymous | 12-Sep-2012 3:24 pm

    Personally, I don't work at either firm, nor advise them. It just seems like there is an awful lot of hostility out there for what seems like a positive story. Perhaps there is a cause for this, or perhaps trolls just like being trolls.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • The bouncer is standing by the lights. The DJ has started playing "Come on Eileen". Everyone on the dancefloor has coupled up, apart from two awkward souls. One is sporting a big red slap mark on their face (dispensed by an earlier ill fated flirtation with a Scottish lady). Their eyes meet. They simultaneously whisper to themselves "you'll have to do"...

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Take two firms who have been falling down the rankings for years, don't resolve their inherent problems and then hastily merge them together. What could possibly go wrong?

    Perhaps they could tempt former Dickie Dees "captain" John Flynn back to lead "Bond Dees LLP"?

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Good on them.

    Why should it only be successful firms that get to merge?

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • These firms should keep in mind that a Matt Le Tissier plus a Paul Gascoigne does not a Messi make.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • It is bizarre that this has become public before any meaningful due diligence has been conducted. Is neither firm capable of drafting an effective confidentiality agreement? Can't their partners be trusted with commercially sensitive information without blurting it out?

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • @Anonymous 12 Sep - 2012 4:47pm

    Yours is the most interesting point so far. It is bizarre how it seems many firms accept that they just can't keep these things quiet. I seem to remember that when Coward Chance hooked up with Clifford-Turner all those years ago they cooked up some story about the senior partner's secretary being on compassionate leave so she could work full-time on the merger without others in the office suspecting anything. That shows the lengths they went to in those days to keep things under wraps.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Anon & Dayglo Dave,

    Presumably most firms keep talks quiet because if either firm leaves talks after this announcement, the assumption will be it is because the other has financial problems.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • The Golden Turd Award from RollonFriday as noted on DD's Wikipedia entry must surely have been a deal clincher for Bond Pearce. Quality outfit!

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • It is clear what will happen after this merger. REDUNDANCIES!!!!!! Support staff beware. Dickinson Pearce will not need two HR departments, two IT departments, two finance departments and two marketing departments etc etc. They may even cull wayward senior staff such as directors. The only people who will benefit from this merger, as always, will be the partners.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • What a shabby outfit. Their reputation for bad mouthing their own people should be enough to send any self respecting merger partner running for cover!

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • I can't see the business case, other than shedding support staff.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • With such pithy statements from both managing partners, they should get on like a house on fire. They must have been watching re-runs of Yes Minister.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

View results 10 per page | 20 per page | 50 per page |

Have your say

Mandatory Required Fields

Mandatory

Comments that are in breach or potential breach of our terms and conditions in particular clause 8, may not be published or, if published, may subsequently be taken down. In addition we may remove any comment where a complaint is made in respect of it. These actions are at our sole discretion.

  • Print
  • Comments (53)