Size matters: Womble Bond Dickinson merger with BDB Pitmans canned as it ‘would be more like a takeover acquisition’
Womble Bond Dickinson and BDB Pitmans have scrapped plans for a merger, the firms confirmed today, as analysts suggested the relative size of the former would mean a merger would, in reality, be more like a takeover.
The law firms, who first entered talks in Autumn 2022, said in a joint statement they had “decided not to proceed further with their proposed merger” which would see them create a firm with annual turnovers of more than £400m.
“After extensive discussions on the combined proposition, both firms have decided that the best path forward is to remain independent of each other,” the two firms said.
The two firms declined to comment further.
Speaking to Morning Wire legal sector M&A broker Jeff Zindani argued size discrepancies between the two firms may have undermined the transatlantic merger plans.
He noted that while mid-market Anglo-American law firm Womble Bond Dickinson generated revenues of $520.5m (£422.5m), UK national law firm BDB Pitmans generated £54.8m in revenues over the same period of time.
The M&A broker said the sheer size of Womble Bond Dickinson would mean any deal between the two firms would have looked more like a “takeover acquisition”.
“Straightaway Womble Bond Dickinson become the dominant partner,” Zindani said.
He warned that “cultural” differences between the two firms may have also scuppered the deal, as he noted the discrepancies between Womble Bond Dickinson’s “international” outlook and BDB Pitman’s UK focus.
The broker noted that while the merger made sense “on paper” in allowing Womble Bond Dickinson new access to BDB Pitman’s footprint in England, there are “significant cultural differences” between the two firms.
He noted BDB Pitman’s predecessor, Pitmans Law, which merged with Bircham Dyson Bell in 2018, was a “very traditional firm”.
The broker noted that fears around the current state of the economy may have also caused the deal to collapse, as he suggested the deal may begun to be seen as “too risky” in the current market.
In their joint statement, the two law firms said they “will continue to work closely together in the future” as they claimed “excellent relationships have been established”.