Mergers give firms Maw chance

The link that created Mayer Brown Rowe & Maw shows that the right merger can help law firms grow more quickly in tandem, writes Paul Maher

Soon after the combination between Rowe & Maw and Mayer Brown & Platt in February 2002, I started getting phone calls from managing partners of other London law firms.

Not surprisingly the one question that was on each of their minds was: how did you do it?

The combination created a new entity, Mayer Brown Rowe & Maw, and shot the firm into top ten ranking status of global law firms both by size and by profitability.

We were now a part of a law firm with 13 offices worldwide, consisting of more than 400 partners and 1,300 lawyers.

This is a big leap by any standards.

My own view is that, with the world legal market in a period of consolidation, I am sure other UK firms will follow suit.

Obviously there are many advantages, but equally there are some pitfalls to be wary of too.

The main advantage from our perspective has been in the area of client service.

Clients increasingly need an international service and we are now in a position to offer them exactly that.

Medium-sized practices - as Rowe & Maw was - are in danger of losing clients to the magic circle firms for no other reason than their lack of international presence.

The advantage of a truly international firm is that we can offer our clients an assurance of quality, irrespective of location together with a seamless service.

Another main advantage is critical mass.

With strong offices in the key financial centres of the world - London, Paris, New York and Frankfurt - we can advise on any transaction, of any size, anywhere in the world.

The combination also offered an acceleration for both sides in their growth strategy.

Both firms had been highly successful in their own right and obviously could have continued to do so individually.

However, the combination was a strategic decision to achieve these objectives more quickly.

Mayer Brown & Platt was looking for a strong London presence and Rowe & Maw was looking for international capability; it was a natural fit.

But what ensured the success of the combination was the excellent synergy between the two firms.

This was obvious from the outset at our first meeting in 2001.

Despite, the so-called cultural divide between English and US law firms, we discovered that not only did we already share key clients, we had a very similar way of doing business.

Mutual respect and a steely determination guaranteed the success of the negotiation process.

It was this mutual respect between the firms which allowed for a devolved style of management.

Regionally, each office is managed by designated partners who report to the international planning & policy committee.

Stuart James, Sean Connolly and myself have seats on the 13-strong committee which governs the firm.

In addition, I have responsibility for the firm's European operations as well as continuing to head the London corporate group.

We also wanted to ensure a continuing autonomy for the London office and the deal included operational autonomy including remuneration, hourly rates and billing targets.

The potential pitfalls in a tie-up of this magnitude are obviously a concern.

Any idea of losing autonomy and firm identity can be troubling issues, as can the practical integration problems of co-ordinating IT systems globally and managing media relations through delicate periods of negotiation.

The possibility of press leaks can be unsettling for staff and clients of the firm alike.

Challenging as they may be, none of theses issues is insurmountable.

The key to achieving any kind of success is always to remain focused on your vision - we at Mayer Brown Rowe & Maw are starting to realise ours now.

Paul Maher is the head of corporate group at City-based Mayer Brown Rowe & Maw