North East firm Dickinson Dees and South West firm Bond Pearce are discussing a potential merger which would catapult the combined firm into the UK’s top 40.
The firms confirmed the talks today. The news comes six months after Bond Pearce ended merger discussions with Scottish firm Maclay Murray & Spens (14 March 2012), citing commercial reasons.
In a statement Dickinson Dees’ managing partner Jonathan Blair said: “Our strategies, cultures, sector capabilities and geographic footprints appear to be sufficiently complementary as to warrant consideration of whether, in a rapidly consolidating market, a merger of our two firms would facilitate the execution of their respective strategies.”
“Both Bond Pearce and Dickinson Dees have clearly articulated strategies. By merging the two firms we could take a major step towards fulfilling our longer term strategic goals, implementing now a client and values driven merger to create a firm in the top 30 in the UK capable of delivering the strength in depth and specialist skills required by our clients, be they large corporates, major organisations or high net worth individuals. It is that opportunity that we now wish to explore,” added Bond Pearce’s managing partner Victor Tettmar.
Both firms recorded turnover of £46m in 2011-12. Dickinson Dees’ revenue hit £46.1m, a slight increase on the previous year (16 May 2012), with average profit per equity partner (PEP) of £235,000. Bond Pearce’s turnover was £46.5m, also with PEP of £235,000.
The combined firm would have 125 partners and more than 450 lawyers.
Bond Pearce has offices in Aberdeen, Bristol, London, Plymouth and Southampton. Dickinson Dees, meanwhile, has two Newcastle offices and one in the Tees Valley, as well as bases in Leeds and London. It closed down its York office in June last year, transferring all staff to Leeds (29 June 2011).
Blair told The Lawyer that while the firms had agreed not to make further comment, the talks had reached the stage where the firms were building a business case and this was “making sense”. He added that the discussions were still in very early stages and due diligence had not yet begun.
Readers' comments (52)
Anonymous | 13-Sep-2012 12:59 pm
Dickinson Dees could post significant profits and the commentators would still criticise them. I swear some people sit at their desk at 10am, waiting to seek something in the legal media to critique like they're Paxman. Either that, or they don't have a desk at all. How about it getting out, DD confirming the talks to limit the roumers, then let them get on with it and see how it goes rather than doing the number crunching in your head and concluding nothing.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 13-Sep-2012 1:57 pm
@12.59pm:
Roumers?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 13-Sep-2012 2:09 pm
So now even mild criticism of Dickinson Dees provokes paranoid rants about trolls and conspiracy theories, as well as boasts about owning a desk. Oh dear.
I like Dickinson Dees. They've got some great staff. However they urgently need a reality check. As the 59th biggest firm in the UK they look like a joke when they pompously brand themselves as "leading law firm, Dickinson Dees". Contrary to their delusions, they're not particularly liked in the North East and their track record towards junior staff is woeful.
For this reason I think a Bond Pearce merger is a masterstroke. Culturally Bond Pearce is like Dickinson Dees would have been if they had been able to maintain the same quality of partners that they had in the 1980s and 1990s. So, make use of this. Put Bond Pearce partners in the important decision making positions, promote the talents middle order lawyers at DD (whose way has been blocked by under-performing partners for years) and start afresh with a new name / brand.
It'll be tough for some, but I think these changes will be good.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Coolio | 13-Sep-2012 3:46 pm
Le Tissier + Gazza v Messi......which would you choose if you could have 2 or 1. I would go for MLT + Gazza all day long.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 13-Sep-2012 3:48 pm
I agree with most comments. I think DD has been struggling to meet its own expectations and the brand it upholds (2.09 "Leading law firm"). Nevertheless merging with Bond Pearce appears, on the face of it, to be a fitting match to try an inject (and shuffle) some adrenaline into the firm. Tough times ahead over the next 6-12 months if it goes ahead, but agree with the above - these necessary changes have the potential to really boost the firm.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Well, Well, Well... | 13-Sep-2012 8:49 pm
If I was in a support department at either firm I'd be bricking it...end of. Not sure why so many people on here want to slate Dickies though...maybe they turned them down for a training contract and it still stings? All this 'unsuccessful law firm' business is hilarious. Unsuccessful by whose standards? Certainly not the UK economy's. Lawyers...they really should get out more.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 13-Sep-2012 10:20 pm
If I were Bond Pearce, I'd cherry pick the profitable, well run Leeds office and leave the rest of this shoddy, unpopular firm.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 14-Sep-2012 10:29 am
Im proud of DD and what it has achieved. It’s a great place to work . Lets be positive & excited about this news! Those who spout all the negativity need to get a life and concentrate on their own workplace instead of trying to drag a good firm down…and if they still work at DD…leave! Then they’ll realise the grass certainly isn’t greener!!
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 14-Sep-2012 11:00 am
Anon 10.29,
I left. Honestly the grass is way greener than at Dickie Dees.
I discovered that going to work can actually be fun.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 14-Sep-2012 12:14 pm
I left DD. My only regret is that I didn't leave earlier.
The firm really needs to listen. They need to tackle a small minority of partners / associates who bad-mouth any staff who have the temerity to leave.
This is the major reason why I would be loathe to instruct Dickinson Dees in my new job. Likewise, it's why I think so many people are willing to air their dislike of the firm.
PS. I can assure you that the grass is greener. Much greener.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment