Mayer Brown courtship of Simmons founders
US giant undeterred by failed talks as search for City ally continues
Mayer Brown has been in secret merger talks with Simmons & Simmons as the Chicago-headquartered firm looks at ways of bolstering its dwindling presence on the UK side of the Atlantic.
It is understood that the two firms held talks, which have now been aborted, over the possibility of creating a £1bn global business that would have gifted Mayer Brown more UK and European coverage and extended Simmons’ reach in Asia.
Simmons, which is to open a Chinese ’hub’ in Beijing this year (The Lawyer, 31 May), is targeting growth in that emerging market, where Mayer Brown has a substantial presence through its 2008 merger with Johnson Stokes & Master.
“China’s right at the top of the list. The US is a big issue and we’ve thought about [that market] on and off for a decade,” commented Simmons managing partner Mark Dawkins.
Pointing out that it is firm policy to refuse to comment on merger talks, Dawkins added: “We have a clear strategy that works for us. We’re not blind to what’s happening in the market.”
Despite the fact that discussions with Simmons were unsuccessful, Mayer Brown is thought to be continuing to pursue a City union, with sources citing the catalyst as disappointment about the growth of the London office that it acquired in 2002 as a result of the tie-up with Rowe & Maw.
The firm signed up for 220,000sq ft of new office space at 201 Bishopsgate in 2007. One source close to the firm confirmed that the real estate deal was ”predicated on a business plan to increase growth in London by 70 per cent”.
“It hasn’t had growth of 70 per cent; in fact it’s probably gone down,” the source added.
While Mayer Brown’s 2009 global average profit per equity partner figure of $1.05m (£726,000) was higher than the £520,000 posted by Simmons in 2008-09, Mayer Brown’s UK office experienced a 28 per cent fall in revenue last year to $146.3m. This was one of the largest drops for any US firm in London last year.
News of Mayer Brown’s merger quest comes after US firm Sonnenschein Nath & Rosenthal and UK counterpart Denton Wilde Sapte asked their partners to approve a September merger.
Hogan & Hartson and Lovells completed their transatlantic merger at the beginning of May.
View results 10 per page | 20 per page | 50 per page
Readers' comments (35)
Anonymous | 10-Jun-2010 1:13 am
First, I am not sure I spoke out against Paul - I think I said some nice things, but was just trying to put a "reality spin" on all of this Paul worshiping. So - no one I can see is speaking out against Paul - just trying to balance all the speaking out pro-Paul in an article about Mayer Brown.
Still (as my kids always say), Paul and those who love him (and I note again I don't think I said anything bad at all about him - he did a good job for one of my clients shortly after the merger) are free to love him. But he left more than a few months ago, so why bother with all the now old news angst - at least in an article about Mayer Brown and Simmons. Yes, it could be interesting for all of us to meet at the pub and discuss all the ins and outs of what might have been with Paul at Mayer Brown and lots of other lawyers at lots of other firms. (FYI, I like to watch the movements of Maurice Allen - sadly he has not come yet to Mayer Brown.)
There are so many impressive lawyers who have joined and left Mayer Brown and other firms, I am not sure why Paul and his friends can't move on.
If he is so amazing, again, why is not at Slaughters, Freshfields, Linklaters, A&O, Cravath, Cleary, A&O, Sullivan and Cromwell, Simpson Thatcher, Skadden, Davis Polk, Wachtel to name but a few. Mayer Brown is probably not in the league of those firms (although no doubt in some areas it is, but not overall). Or why not join another slightly below the top firms like K&E, Ashurts, Jones Day, Latham, Sidley, D&P, Gibson Dunn, etc,
Frankly (and this might be slightly anti-Paul), why don't Paul's supporters get him to one of those firms and take over the legal world - that would make Mayer Brown eat his dust better than all of the silly banter (mine included!) on the website. So bring it on - Paul Maher, Senior Partner at Slaughters!
Come on, guys lets move on - Mayer Brown articles about Mayer Brown. Paul articles about his new efforts at his new firm are great as well - but let's move on.
My final word - if all of Paul's friends could please give us your names two things will happen. First, your comments will have some greater credibility. Second, I will reveal myself as well - how grown up. xxx
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 10-Jun-2010 12:50 pm
Does anyone else find it slightly irritating that any article about Mayer Brown always gets hijacked by the disciples of Paul Maher? No doubt if Mayer Brown posted spectacular financial results it would be down to the legacy that Paul left behind. It is irritating - and it is also likely to backfire on GTM at some point, I would suspect.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 10-Jun-2010 1:53 pm
Once again this topic fascinates, but you all need to move on, debating this is going to have absolutely no effect on the predicament of Paul and Mayer Brown. Their destinies are in their own hands! Clearly there was a rather acrimonious fall out that has left people on both sides resentful. It’s time to forgive and forget.
All I would add is that clearly Paul Maher is a very good lawyer and is building a very strong London presence (their total headcount is already 60+), I’ve worked with GTM over the last year and seen the amount of business they’ve already won; I’m not quite sure how one can therefore justify the claim that they’ve won no business! The firm’s end of year results will show this to be untrue, of that I’m certain.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 10-Jun-2010 1:57 pm
how grown up! xxxx
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 10-Jun-2010 6:21 pm
these polarised responses reflect the polarising history of the firm - the old guard at Rowe and Maw versus those who partners who were not in that pre-merger clique and the cultural differences between a very dynamic American firm and an establishment English firm. if the rest of the partnership and their business plans were sufficiently successful Paul Mahers departure would not have generated such a difficulty for them - to state the obvious. this appears like Cadwalder albeit on a bigger scale when Wilkinson left London office of that firm
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Paul Maurice Mike | 10-Jun-2010 8:41 pm
Personally, I'm gutted that Maher never hooked up with Mike Allen and Maurice Goetz - that would have kept us hacks and market watchers entertained for years.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 11-Jun-2010 12:41 pm
Anonymous 6.21pm - I think you'll find in fact that at the time of the merger the "very dynamic" firm was Rowe & Maw (having restructured its partnership, it was punching well above its weight at the time of the merger) and that the "establishment" firm was and still is (in Chicago at least) Mayer Brown. The firm is controlled and dominated by the "old guard" at the latter.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 12-Jun-2010 11:14 am
Clearly Mr Maher still generates great interest. The old Chicago firm was pretty conservative, even old fashioned, and Rowe & Maw was dynamic at the time of the merger, but that was at least partly due to Paul himself, though the firm then (and now) was much more than him. The logic of the merger was largely size driven though there were other factors. To the person who asked why Paul was not at a firm such as Slaughters, etc, the answer is he could have been, as those with long memories know that the changes at Rowe & Maw were sparked by his threat to go to Clifford Chance and lack of profitability. However it was plain that he wanted to lead (some might say dominate) and that is borne out by subsequent events. He is obviously a good lawyer, but can be an uneasy bed fellow. Whatever his faults, he appears to establish good client relationships and a loyal team behind him. Time will tell about GTM. The current problems with the abortive Mayer Brown merger are no doubt partly due to his departure, as they have exposed the current MB weaknesses, but I would guess that Simmons have their problems too - and a lot of this will be wrapped around very expensive premises, although the attractiveness of the Far East practice must be tempting if the partners there want to hook up with Simmons.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 15-Jun-2010 8:03 pm
Maher was a disaster for Mayer Brown - there's no escaping it. His acclaimed leadership left the London office moribund and with a massive real estate liability that he himself personally negotiated. He also personally negotiated the JSM deal which was even more expensive for MB that the Rowe and Maw merger. There are no stars joining GTM and there is no way its profitable after partner draws in the same way MB London was never profitable in this way. My prediction is GTM will quietly close its London office at some point and MB London will continue to drain resources from MB US.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 16-Jun-2010 7:24 pm
Anonymous 8:03 p.m, you're talking absolute rubbish, Paul Maher was Mayer Brown's best lawyer, as for GTM you clearly have no nowledge of the legal market! Mayer Brown has collapsed as a result of Maher's departure!
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment