In the complex world of Biglaw mergers, the decision on whose name appears first can significantly impact the newly formed entity's brand perception. The recent merger between Ashurst and Perkins Coie illustrates this challenge vividly, shedding light on the strategic considerations behind naming conventions in the legal industry.

Historically, when large law firms merge, the resulting name often favors the more dominant partner. However, this is not a strict rule and can vary based on the firms' strategic goals and market presence. According to Allan Ripp, a seasoned media strategist for law firms, "People in the U.K. may continue to refer to it as Ashurst, but I think in the U.S., unfortunately for the double brand, it will be known as Perkins." This highlights a geographical preference that can influence which name leads.

Ripp further explains the rarity of maintaining a double-barreled firm name in such unions, noting that iconic firms like Skadden, Cravath, and Pillsbury lean towards simpler, single-name brands. The challenge, he points out, lies in the ability to maintain a double name without losing the individual identity and equity built up by each firm over years.

The intrigue deepens with Ripp's commentary on the dynamics of dominance within a merger. "There’s always a dominant firm in a merger, despite what they tell you," he remarks. In the case of Ashurst and Perkins Coie, Ripp suggests that putting Perkins Coie's name first might lead to Ashurst being eventually dropped in casual references, indicating a subtle yet significant shift in perceived hierarchy within the partnership.

This merger and the decision over the name order underscore a broader trend in legal services where brand identity plays a crucial role in the firm's global recognition and client retention. As law firms continue to expand and merge across borders, the lessons learned from Ashurst Perkins Coie could serve as a valuable blueprint for future legal industry consolidations, where balancing legacy and innovation becomes key to crafting a name that resonates across different markets.

The discussions and decisions surrounding such mergers are more than just logistical; they reflect deeper strategic branding considerations that can define a firm's market position for years to come.