Large U.S. law firms continue to pursue mergers to scale up, but a Bloomberg Law analysis reveals that most have failed to keep pace with their industry peers post-merger.

Of the 18 largest mergers in the past 15 years, two-thirds saw combined firms increase profits per partner and revenue per lawyer at a slower rate than competitors. Only three of those deals outperformed the average gross revenue growth among the country’s 100 largest firms.

Many firm leaders rush into mergers as a way to gain market share or expand practice areas without fully considering how to retain talent, integrate operations, or justify higher billing rates.

“That’s a recipe for failure,” said Albert Bollard, a partner at McKinsey & Co. who advises law firms. “Too often we see that the merger is seen as a strategy in and of itself.”

The Fallout: Lawyer Departures and Declining Revenues

Mergers often lead to an exodus of top talent, making it difficult for firms to capitalize on their expanded footprint.

• Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner (BCLP): The firm, which has merged three times since 2009, has lost 29% of its equity partners since its most recent 2018 merger. Its gross revenue declined by nearly 7%, while competitors averaged 41% growth.
• Locke Lord: After merging with Edwards Wildman in 2015, the firm saw its gross revenue drop nearly 17%. Over 30 lawyers from Edwards Wildman’s Boston office departed in the first nine months.
• K&L Gates: Following its 2009 acquisition of Bell, Boyd & Lloyd, the firm experienced revenue growth at less than a quarter of the industry average, with its Chicago office shrinking by 40% within three years.

Firms that fail to manage partner expectations and integrate teams effectively often suffer the consequences of losing their best rainmakers.

“Law firm mergers are the Super Bowl of talent retention,” Bollard said. Headhunters start calling partners the moment a deal is announced, forcing firms to make specific guarantees to retain top talent, he added.

Firms That Got It Right

A handful of firms successfully leveraged mergers for sustainable growth:

• Husch Blackwell: After merging with Whyte Hirschboeck in 2016, the firm grew gross revenue by 75%, outperforming the 61% Am Law 100 average.
• Nelson Mullins: Following its 2018 acquisition of Broad and Cassel, the firm exceeded both revenue and profit benchmarks for its peer group.
• Hogan Lovells: Formed in 2010 through a U.S.-U.K. merger, the firm saw 115% growth in profits per equity partner—surpassing the industry average.

These firms focused on careful integration, financial planning, and strategic alignment of practice groups rather than just expanding headcount.

Angela Quinn, chief client officer at Husch Blackwell, said early collaboration was key. “We’re already thinking integration, and we’re already bringing groups together, we’re already putting together the plan,” she said.

The Case for Smarter Consolidation

Law firms’ push for mergers mirrors corporate America’s approach to growth. But while companies have improved their ability to integrate acquisitions, law firms still struggle to make mergers work.

Bain & Co. research shows that frequent corporate acquirers tend to outperform competitors, but massive deals remain high-risk.

• For law firms, the biggest rewards tend to favor those who focus on integration, strategic alignment, and talent retention rather than just size.
• “Managing partners seem unable to take the needle out of their arm,” said Janet Stanton, a law firm consultant at Adam Smith, Esq. “They’re not really dealing necessarily with the real issues or thinking about how they should be doing things differently to grow.”

With Kirkland & Ellis and Latham & Watkins dominating the market without major mergers—posting revenue growth of 415% and 196% since 2008, respectively—firms looking to compete will need more than just bigger headcounts. They’ll need a plan that ensures long-term sustainability, not just short-term expansion, the Bloomberg Law analysis shows.