Big is beautiful within today's legal profession -- there is no doubt about that.

Firms merge and merge again, attaining anything from countrywide to global status.

But merging can be fraught with pitfalls and firms are waking up to the question of how to handle the operation with skill.Will the merger that a firm has planned for years blossom into a healthy marriage or end as a mean-spirited partnership? Will the merger be welcomed or be reviled by a grudging workforce?Basically, merging is a people-based issue and it may succeed or fail by dint of the 'spin' that is put on it by those expected to oversee the process.

Successful mergers do not just happen, they must be managed and there are special skills that are needed to pull it off .Andrew Hedley, director of business development at newly merged 157-partner Pinsent Curtis Biddle, says his firm did a lot of thinking about the needs of the staff and clients at the outset.

He says: 'It's about creating a culture in which change is necessary, in order to bring two businesses together'.

The skill is to put two flourishing firms together in such a way that you get the best out of both of them.In merger management, issues must be dealt with in a positive way -- one which fosters 'co-working'.

One important mind-set at Pinsent Curtis Biddle is to get people working effectively together at the outset.As a result of the merger, Pinsents has effectively doubled the size of its London presence and its changed management and integration process has a 'City edge' to it.Mr Hedley says merging firms report that there are common pitfalls to be avoided in attempting to effect good practice and the first is the tendency in some workforces to adopt 'intransigent positions', and people may become 'tribal' or territorial'.

These people set out not to accept the change and managers must keep an eye out for trouble.

Some of these firms have decided to 'break down geography', getting teams to work together on a national basis.

These teams may be multi-practice ones, aimed at chosen industry sectors rather than a specific practice area.

They promote 'cross-selling' which again facilitates change.

Their share aim bonds them.Managing a cross-cultural change, such as a trans-Atlantic merger, necessitates special thought.

Mark Dembovsky, chief executive of London-based Warner Cranston which recently merged with US firm Reed & Smith, says 'everybody has got to want it from the start', and also maintains that early information is vital.

'There has to be incredibly effective communication at all levels, which must be in place right from the start .

.

.

and the thinking about it must start even earlier.'Mr Dembovsky himself forged a 'new, strong relationship' with his US chief executive counterpart in the merger, and together they prepared for likely merger issues.

He says it was important not to see the merger as a takeover, despite the fact that Reed Smith was ten times larger than Warners -- each firm is strong in particular areas, and each respects the other's expertise.In any merger it is inevitable that 'silly little problems' present themselves and Mr Dembovsky is pleased that he can phone his US colleague to sort out difficulties.

'Things are quickly put into perspective in this way.'Mr Dembovsky says his newly merged firm has a shared vision; firms which do not have such a focus 'stumble and fall' over trivial issues.

His two mantras are: shared corporate vision and ongoing communication.Capping the arrangements is Tom Todd, a partner from the US side, who is spending six months as 'integration partner' in the UK with Warner Cranston, effecting a smooth transition.Generally, change management is becoming an exact science.

Cheryl Sklan, a management consultant, has facilitated change both in the public and private sector.

She explains: 'People need clear information about impending changes in general terms, and more specifically in changes to their roles.

People become anxious that they may lose their jobs -- this may or may not be the case -- but in order for them to buy into the change, they need support from their managers.'This support can come in many forms, written, verbal or emotional.

Change involves anxiety, and may well engender negative feelings in the workforce, she says.

'This is always overlooked .

.

.

anger, resentment and rage are all possible emotions, and are the ones that some managers avoid acknowledging.

Managers have often received little training in "listening skills" and may well find it difficult to deal with negativity -- they try to paper over the cracks and push people into accepting change,' says Ms Sklan.People, on the face of it, may go along with the change, but will attempt to sabotage it until their feelings are acknowledged.

'Managers need training in the psychological component of change management -- recognising the validity in workforce anger which is usually about fear of the unknown.'The successful change manager finds a way of helping them to let go; a good way is through reassurance, and delivering good information about how the change will impact on them.

People should be invited to consider any additional training and support they will need.

The workforce must have continuous support until it is sufficiently engaged in the new role,' says Ms Sklan.Mergers are not always smoothly achieved.

A senior partner in a recently merged City practice says her firm was ill-prepared for the culture change.

'We were a small City firm merging with a large national operation.

We became a business not a practice.'She considers that this experience is common throughout the City.

'If you lose billing time as a partner, you're no longer going to be supported by your partners and you'll just be seen as an unproductive partner.

There used to be a few rainmakers among our staff -- now everybody's got to be a rainmaker.' In this partner's firm, many people believed the merger happened to 'stop the firm falling apart .

.

.

what we were being asked to merge with was a large firm with a completely different culture.

Many of us were not at all keen on the merger but there was a crucial meeting in which we were outvoted'.Within a short while of the merger, it lost one of its most prestigious clients, which felt it could not buy into this firm's new culture.

The partner says: 'We felt we had a nice little practice which could have merged better with a different firm -- with the benefit of hindsight we could have done better.'Emotive words can bubble to the surface when mergers are mentioned.

'Anger', 'tribal', 'territorial' have all been used to express feelings that can emerge in a badly managed merger.

Change management seems to be about appropriate matching, managing anxiety, and delivering positive messaging.Nevertheless, in saying 'change is good' firms can fly in the face of the known and the trusted.

They are exposed to uncertainty.

It may sound like a potential existential crisis in the making, so the skill is in the diffusing.