As Thelen Reid Brown Raysman & Steiner and Dewey & LeBoeuf have demonstrated, law firm mergers and acquisitions can be tricky—and potentially fatal. However, not all Am Law 200 dissolutions play out so publicly—or so rancorously. In April, New York–based Hughes Hubbard & Reed and Luskin, Stern & Eisler quietly parted ways with a minimum of animus. When Hughes Hubbard acquired eight-lawyer Luskin Stern in September 2008, the marriage seemed like a good fit. Hughes Hubbard had just landed the Lehman Brothers bankruptcy, and its 12-lawyer department needed reinforcements. Nineteen-year-old Luskin Stern fit the bill. “Luskin, Stern & Eisler routinely goes toe-to-toe with the big players in major U.S. and cross-border insolvencies,” said Hughes Hubbard managing partner Chuck Scherer in a statement at the time of the acquisition. “Now they’ll have a larger, deeper platform to do it from. And we’ll have an expanded restructuring practice when the time is clearly right.” So why are they separating now?

According to name partner Michael Luskin, he and partners Richard Stern and Nathan Eisler wanted to get back to their roots. “We were never big-firm people,” he says. “And we missed the flexibility and control and lack of conflicts of interest that come from working in a small firm.” Candace Beinecke, chair of Hughes Hubbard, agrees that the split simply boiled down to size. “It was clear they preferred their old situation. We understood that completely and look forward to continuing to work with them on a number of significant matters,” says Beinecke. The three name partners of Luskin Stern departed along with two Hughes Hubbard associates. Patrick Gartland, a former Luskin Stern counsel who became partner after the acquisition, will remain with Hughes ­Hubbard.