Field Fisher Waterhouse (FFW) and Osborne Clarke have called off their merger talks after failing to agree a £200m combination.

Simon Beswick
The firms had not yet put the deal to their partnerships for a vote after being in negotiations for the last few months (17 September 2012).
It marks the second unsuccessful attempt by FFW to seal a merger this year after the City firm abandoned discussions with Lawrence Graham in the summer (28 June 2012).
FFW and Osborne Clarke said the decision was made “amicably” based on “differences between the two firms’ operating models”.
Osborne Clarke managing partner Simon Beswick said in a statement: “We have a fairly similar vision of where we want to be and, between us, we have some great practices that could work well together. However, there are some differences in our approaches as to how we get there. The shared vision sparked the exploratory talks. In the end, though, we had to recognise that our approaches are too different to combine.
“One of the benefits of the talks is that they gave us the opportunity to build excellent relationships with the FFW team, particularly with [acting managing partner] Michael [Chissick] and [managing partner] Matthew [Lohn], who are impressive and are clearly dedicated to the success of FFW. We wish them and the firm well.”
Chissick added: “Although our firms have similar ambitions, they have a number of essential differences, including those between both firms’ international structures. Those differences were marked enough to convince us that we would retain our core strengths better as separate firms.
“The process has been positive, both as a way of assessing internal strengths but also because of the strong relationships and friendships that have been formed between the two firms.”
FFW management was expected to update partners on the situation at its annual retreat later this month, but talks have ended before this could happen (29 October 2012).
Market commentators have highlighted the firms’ cultural differences, with Osborne Clarke seen as a more mature operation compared with the politically intense FFW (24 September 2012). Their corporate practices, meanwhile, are fairly closely aligned (12 November 2012).
Readers' comments (17)
Good day to bury | 14-Nov-2012 4:17 pm
Good day to bury bad news perhaps?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anon | 14-Nov-2012 4:22 pm
Pity for both firms, which are in the same position of being increasingly sub scale, over dependent on the UK - which is a rapidly shrinking part of the world economy - and lacking the resources to globalise.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Ann Onymus | 14-Nov-2012 4:30 pm
Well done Osborne Clark, but clearly you have no idea how close you came to inflicting years of misery on yourself.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
M Clattenburg | 14-Nov-2012 4:39 pm
Expect a new wave a redundancies at FFW.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 14-Nov-2012 4:44 pm
LG cited issues with FFW's operating model (ie partnership structure) as the reason why that merger didn't progress on their side. Perhaps FFW needs to have a think about an internal restructure if they wish to become a serious merger contender going forward?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 14-Nov-2012 5:16 pm
3rd time lucky for FFW? I doubt it.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 14-Nov-2012 5:34 pm
FFWhoops
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 14-Nov-2012 5:59 pm
"differences in operating model" - is that code for they couldn't agree who was to lead the combined group?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 14-Nov-2012 8:30 pm
Maybe time for FFW to re-brand as FFS!
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 15-Nov-2012 9:36 am
Dear Osborne Clark you have just had a lucky escape !!!
You would have experienced ' HELL' had you merged with FFW.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment