Field Fisher and LG moot £150m merger By Margaret Taylor 18 May 2012 09:56 17 December 2015 13:05 Sign in or register to continue reading. It's FREE Sign in Email Password Keep me logged in Forgot your password? Not registered? It's FREE! Register now Register with The Lawyer Anonymous 18 May 2012 at 10:28 Two struggling firms, two lots of property headaches. The Pinsents McGrigors deal is making the middle tier think that UK merger is the answer to their problems when the should be out looking for a Chinese firm to merge with. Reply Link Anonymous 18 May 2012 at 12:53 How is FFW struggling? Reply Link Anon 18 May 2012 at 13:20 Even at £150 million turnover the combined firm will still be terribly sub scale. However this would be a start and a sensible move in the right direction. @ Anonymous | 18-May-2012 10:28 am – yes a merger with a Chinese firm makes a lot of sense, but in addition, not instead of this. Reply Link Anonymous 18 May 2012 at 13:27 Or LG for that matter? Reply Link Anonymous 18 May 2012 at 13:38 And how is LG struggling? And what are the property headaches exactly? Reply Link Anonymous 18 May 2012 at 14:19 John Quinn’s quote on the Squire Saunders / Hammonds merger would seem appropriate here: “Two rocks that think if they hug each other tight enough they won’t sink.” Reply Link NJI 18 May 2012 at 14:38 LG have been criticised fairly recently for not offering anything “out of the ordinary,” i.e. the firm has spread itself too thin with insufficient defined identity. As for property headaches, both firms have wildly different types of offices: one is flashy, modern, attractive, but half of the other is bordering on grotty. I can’t see LG wanting to abandon its offices, but it won’t have room for the FFW people. A merged firm with 2 standards of office will certainly be a headache for those involved. Reply Link Anonymous 18 May 2012 at 14:39 I think LG need FFW a hell of a lot more than FFW need LG!….. Unlike other recent tie-ups neother seem as ‘hung up’ about merging with US firms than others seem to. Maybe the Dewey’s debacle has something to do with that! Reply Link Anonymous 18 May 2012 at 15:04 Good to see FFW’s rapid rebuttal squad out in force today. Quiet day, chaps? Reply Link Anonymous 18 May 2012 at 15:45 No conflicts indeed! LG’s property and corporate (ECM) departments are in a different class to FFW – but they lack much else bar a reasonable banking department focussing solely (so far as I can see) on property and a quirky (but far from great) litigation arm. It would fill in a couple of blanks for FFW, including more far flung overseas offices – hence, it could work. However, really the pressure should be on ensuring better mandates and clients rather than merely pursuing size. As others have mentioned, overseas (asian) mergers would probably make more long term sense. Reply Link Anonymous 18 May 2012 at 15:50 I personally think that a merger would be good for both firms. Shake things up and hopefully provide each firm with something they want. In this competitive market bigger may indeed be better! LG have plenty of space in their building to accomodate FFW as they don’t use the entire building. @Anonymous 10.28am REALLY? Who are you, the FD of both firms, pull your head out of your proverbial and stop being such a grouch! Reply Link Anonymous 19 May 2012 at 08:00 This proposal makes a lot of sense for both firms. Complementary and non-conflicting practices, cultural fit and (contrary to some uninformed opinion on this board) a very good real estate play. If it comes off it will be one of the better mid-market mergers of recent years. Comparison with Hammonds and Squire Sanders is utterly risible. Reply Link Name Email Cancel reply Threaded commenting powered by interconnect/it code.