The two firms set out their future plans this week in the wake of merger talks that came to an end after nearly 12 months of debate, as reported on 14 November by legalweek.com. Had the merger been successful it would have created a transatlantic firm with a turnover of nearly £200m.
Watson Farley managing partner Michael Greville said the firm was emphatically not aiming to pursue a merger.
“We are not in a situation where Watson Farley is for sale,” said Greville. “We have a business and the duty of management is looking at how you develop that business. Our strategic objectives do not include just merging for the sake of it.
“We will continue to run the business as we did before and will continue to look at opportunities to expand. Everyone is comfortable and confident. Some are relieved and some are probably disappointed, but my reading of the partnership is that they understand why we have got to where we have.”
Greville’s stance comes despite the top 50
However, Greville stressed that these earlier discussions were driven initially by the desire of the firm’s
Greville’s comments will be seen as a shift, as he was regarded as one of the strongest supporters of a union with Chadbourne, having led the discussions with the
In contrast, O’Neill said Chadbourne is still actively hunting for options to expand its
O’Neill told Legal Week: “Expanding our presence in
Neither Greville nor O’Neill would comment on why the talks were called off, with each praising the other firm and saying only that, despite a good business case for the merger, they could not reach agreement.
However, the formal announcement did not come as a surprise to many, with Legal Week reporting at the start of the month that the talks had stalled — frustrating those Watson Farley partners keen for the deal to go ahead.
It is understood that questions had been raised about the
Some partners claimed the two firms had been unable to reach agreement even on the name of the merged entity, with the make-up of management and the remuneration structure for the combined firm also likely to have been points of debate.
The talks also weathered the departure of Watson Farley international litigation head David Kavanagh and fellow contentious partner David Foster to O’Melveny & Myers, as well as that of projects partner Susan Farmer to Fulbright & Jaworksi. However, the moves were not regarded as having had a critical impact.
The difficulty of securing a deal comes despite broad agreement that the two firms’ office networks and shared focus on energy and projects appeared to offer a complementary fit.
Despite Greville’s optimism about Watson Farley’s ability to grow organically, some in the City are less confident that this will be successful.
One ex-Watson Farley partner told Legal Week: “I do not think Watson Farley has a Plan B, so for the people in the firm who needed a bigger platform for their practice, this could be a significant setback.
“From the firm’s perspective, there was a lot riding on it and it will be interesting to see what happens now. Once the talks started getting delayed by two or three months, you knew it would only be a matter of time until they failed.”"The slow road to nowhere" - Editors' Blog