Bullivant Houser Bailey: 87-Year-Old Law Firm Liquidates in Chapter 11

Bullivant Houser Bailey, PC, a Pacific Northwest law firm founded in 1938 and one of Oregon's larger insurance defense practices, filed for chapter 11 bankruptcy protection on December 15, 2025. The Portland-founded firm, which generated approximately $31 million in annual gross revenue, closed its doors effective November 1, 2025, after failed merger discussions with an Am Law 200 firm and partner departures that reduced its attorney roster. The bankruptcy filing enables an orderly liquidation while the debtor pursues a legal strategy: subordinating approximately $1.64 million in former shareholder capital repayment claims under Section 510(b) of the Bankruptcy Code.

The bankruptcy filing adds to a pattern of law firm dissolutions that includes Dewey & LeBoeuf, Heller Ehrman, and LeClairRyan.

Court	U.S. Bankruptcy Court, Central District of California
Case Number	Active Docket ID 3168
Petition Date	December 15, 2025
Debtor(s)	Bullivant Houser Bailey, PC
2024 Gross Revenue	$31 million
Accounts Receivable	~$2 million (estimated collectible)
Cash at Filing	~$968,796
Employees	8
Chief Dissolution Officer	Ronald L. Richman
341 Meeting	January 16, 2026
Claims Bar Date (Non-Government)	April 16, 2026

Firm History and Practice

Founding and Growth (1938-2000)

Bullivant Houser Bailey PC was founded in 1938 in Portland, Oregon by V.V. Pendergrass, Charles R. Spackman, Jr., and R.R. Bullivant. The founders brought diverse expertise to the new firm. V.V. Pendergrass was known as the "dean" of Oregon bank attorneys, having served for years as counsel to First National Bank of Oregon. R.R. Bullivant had previously worked as counsel for Portland Terminal Railroad Company, while Spackman was noted as an excellent trial lawyer. The firm's early focus centered on banking and corporate law.

The firm expanded over subsequent decades. In 1983, Bullivant launched an office in Vancouver, Washington. The firm adopted its current name "Bullivant Houser Bailey" in 1998 and built practices in product liability defense, insurance coverage, and employment law. In 2000, Bullivant merged with San Francisco's Derby Cook Quinby & Tweedt, a firm tracing its history to 1906 that was widely regarded for its admiralty and maritime practice. The firm expanded to offices in Seattle, Portland, and San Francisco.

Insurance Defense Focus

The majority of Bullivant's practice served insurers and insureds. The firm developed expertise across multiple practice areas including insurance coverage and extra-contractual litigation, commercial litigation, professional liability defense, product liability defense, casualty litigation, ERISA and employee benefits, and admiralty and maritime law.

The firm's professional liability attorneys represented a wide range of professionals including architects, engineers, insurance agents and brokers, attorneys, directors and officers, real estate agents and brokers, healthcare providers, and accountants. Bullivant developed extensive experience in product liability defense through decades of working with local, national, and international manufacturers, sellers, and suppliers.

Industry Recognition

Bullivant received industry recognition for its practice areas. The firm was recognized with Tier 1 rankings from U.S. News & World Report and Best Lawyers for Insurance Law and Admiralty & Maritime Law. Chambers USA ranked the firm Band 1 for Insurance in Washington, Band 4 for Insurance: Insurer in California, and Band 4 for Litigation: General Commercial in Oregon. Chambers noted the firm had a "compact and capable team" singled out for expertise in insurance defense, breach of contract, investigations, and merger-related litigation.

The firm became the exclusive California member of Insuralex Global Insurance Lawyers Group, an insurance and reinsurance law firm network. As firm President Loren Podwill stated, Bullivant had "long-term relationships with many of the largest companies in the insurance industry" and had served property and casualty, life, health, surety, and reinsurance companies for more than 50 years.

The Dissolution: 2011-2025

The LeClairRyan Approach and Exodus (2011)

The first signs of strain emerged in 2011 when merger talks with Virginia-based LeClairRyan collapsed. Willamette Week reported that LeClairRyan had approached Bullivant about acquiring the Portland-based firm. Managing shareholder Beth Skillern confirmed Bullivant declined the offer, stating "We concluded that it was not the right mix for us." She declined to rule out future acquisition possibilities, saying "Never say never."

After the failed merger, the ABA Journal reported that the attorney roster at Bullivant dropped from 236 to 58. Twenty-two capital shareholders terminated their employment in the first part of 2011 alone to work for other law firms, with a total of 38 capital shareholders departing over the preceding four years.

After losing half of its remaining partners, the firm announced it would need more time to reimburse departing partners for their capital contributions, though it still intended to do so in full. Despite the departures, firm leadership expressed confidence, stating Bullivant "will not only survive, but thrive." Former partners spoke positively about the firm and said Bullivant should be commended for continuing with the capital repayments.

LeClairRyan later dissolved and filed for bankruptcy in September 2019, with the firm's collapse attributed to excessive growth, overhead, and declining profitability. At its peak, LeClairRyan had grown to 25 offices with approximately 385 lawyers before becoming insolvent.

Final Phase (2025)

By 2025, attorney departures accelerated, and competing firms hired Bullivant attorneys.

The July 2025 Wilson Elser hire brought partners Lloyd Bernstein, Kirsten Curtis, Christina Anh Ho, and Bryce Adams to the Portland office along with four associates. The team specialized in insurance coverage and extra-contractual litigation. Wilson Elser described the moves as supporting its "commitment to strengthening its presence in the Pacific Northwest."

U.K.-based Kennedys hired an eight-person insurance and litigation team formerly of Bullivant to its Seattle office, which had opened less than a year prior. These team departures preceded the firm's November 2025 closure.

Path to Dissolution

The timeline from merger failure to bankruptcy filing in 2025:

The November 11 civil action by former shareholder Thomas Hutchinson sought recovery of his capital repayment claim. The chapter 11 filing imposed the automatic stay, halting the litigation.

Financial Position at Filing

Assets

The firm's asset base at filing consisted primarily of accounts receivable and cash on hand:

The November 1 combined accounts receivable and work-in-progress estimate was $4.2 million, while the December filing estimate for collectible receivables was $2 million.

Liabilities

The largest category of debt consists of former shareholder capital repayment claims at approximately $1.64 million. These are the claims the debtor seeks to subordinate under Section 510(b). Contingent lease claims represent the second largest liability category, reflecting the firm's multi-location footprint and the long-term nature of commercial real estate leases.

Columbia Bank held secured debt of $377,492 which was paid in full pre-petition. As a result, the estate has no remaining secured debt obligations. The firm had 8 active employees at filing. Prepetition wages and employee obligations fall within the Section 507(a)(5) priority cap of $17,150 per employee for wages and benefits earned within 180 days of filing. A severance trust account of $126,779 was established pre-bankruptcy to address employee obligations.

Liquidating Chapter 11 Process

The bankruptcy filing serves two primary objectives. First, it enables an orderly wind-down: continuing to collect accounts receivable, administering remaining client matters through transition, and distributing assets to creditors according to the Bankruptcy Code's priority scheme. Second, the filing provides a forum to seek subordination of former shareholder capital repayment claims under Section 510(b).

The Section 510(b) Strategy

A central legal issue in this case is whether former shareholder capital repayment claims should be subordinated to the level of equity interests under 11 U.S.C. Section 510(b). This provision of the Bankruptcy Code provides a mechanism to preserve the creditor/shareholder risk allocation paradigm by categorically subordinating claims asserted against a debtor by equity holders arising from the purchase or sale of securities.

The purpose of Section 510(b) is to prevent the "bootstrapping" of equity interests into claims that are on a par with other creditor claims. Congress enacted the provision to prevent disappointed shareholders from recovering the value of their investment by filing bankruptcy claims that would compete with general unsecured creditors.

Legal scholars refer to this as the "Slain/Kripke theory of risk allocation"—the principle that shareholders assume the risk of a wrongful or unlawful purchase or sale of securities. The policy rationale is to prevent a shareholder from recovering from the limited assets of a debtor as a creditor by "converting" its equity stake into a claim.

In the context of a professional services partnership, capital contributions function similarly to equity investments. Partners contribute capital to the firm, receive returns based on firm performance, and bear the risk of firm failure. When a partner departs, the firm typically owes repayment of that capital contribution according to an agreed schedule. The debtor's argument is that these capital repayment claims are equity-like. The debtor argues that shareholders assumed the risk of firm performance and should not compete with trade creditors who had no such upside.

If successful, subordination would place the $1.64 million in former shareholder claims behind the approximately $450,000 in trade debt and employee priority claims.

The application of Section 510(b) to law firm partner capital claims involves whether partner capital contributions in professional services firms constitute "securities" within the meaning of the statute and how the policy rationale for subordination applies to law firm partnerships. The debtor's position would prioritize trade vendors, landlords, and employees over former partners who participated in the firm's governance and shared in its profits and losses.

Shareholder agreements typically address the rights and obligations of withdrawing partners, including valuation of equity stakes, timing of payment obligations, and contingencies for firm financial distress. The bankruptcy forum provides the mechanism for resolving these competing claims according to statutory priorities.

Case Timeline

First Day Relief

The court addressed first day motions at the December 19, 2025 hearing:

The court reduced the Donlin Recano claims agent budget from the initial request. Several issues remain to be resolved. The court is addressing concerns regarding venue and administrative expenses, and a formal motion to transfer venue may be required. The Thomas Hutchinson civil action filed November 11, 2025 is now stayed by the automatic stay but will need to be resolved through the claims process. The debtor faces document filing deadlines within 14 days of filing to avoid automatic dismissal risk.

Law Firm Bankruptcy Context

Pattern of Major Law Firm Failures

Bullivant's dissolution follows a pattern of large law firm failures over the past two decades:

Dewey & LeBoeuf remains the largest law firm collapse in history. At its peak, the firm had more than 1,300 lawyers and 26 offices around the world. The collapse resulted from mismanagement that left the firm more than $300 million in debt, unable to pay its lawyers and unable to stem defections by more than 300 partners who took clients to new firms.

Brobeck, Phleger & Harrison expanded during the dot-com boom. The San Francisco firm's revenue jumped from $214 million in 1998 to $314 million in 2000 during the dot-com boom, with profits-per-partner rising to more than $1 million annually at peak. When merger talks with Morgan Lewis & Bockius broke off in January 2003, the firm announced disbanding two days later after partner defections, bank debt, and empty office space. The firm was subsequently liquidated under Chapter 7.

Howrey LLP, a global antitrust and intellectual property firm with more than 700 attorneys at peak, dissolved in March 2011 after experiencing disappointing financial performance over the preceding two years. An involuntary Chapter 7 petition was filed in April 2011, later converted to Chapter 11 in June 2011. The bankruptcy trustee recovered upwards of one hundred million dollars for the Howrey bankruptcy estate through asset collection, avoidance actions, and resolution of partner unfinished business claims.

Common Failure Patterns

Several patterns recur across law firm failures:

Partnership Structure Vulnerability: When key partners depart, they take clients and revenue streams, often triggering a decline. At Heller Ehrman, the exit of 15 intellectual property partners to Covington & Burling constituted a potential default under the firm's line of credit; the firm later liquidated. A total of 50 partners had left the firm in 2008 before dissolution.

Capital Repayment Obligations: Departing partners are owed their capital contributions, creating cash demands during periods of financial stress. Partnership agreements typically provide for valuation of a withdrawing partner's equity stake and timing of the firm's payment obligation for both undistributed income and equity. These obligations create liquidity pressure during periods of financial stress.

Failed Mergers: Attempted combinations sometimes fail at the final stages. Bullivant (2011 LeClairRyan talks) and Brobeck (2003 Morgan Lewis talks) experienced this sequence.

Lease Obligations: Long-term commercial leases create contingent claims that can exceed other liabilities. Bullivant's estimated $1.75 million in contingent lease claims exceeds both its trade debt and shareholder claims.

The insurance defense sector where Bullivant operated faces structural challenges. According to The American Lawyer, insurance defense firms face constrained billing rates and flat fee arrangements imposed by insurance company clients. As insurance carriers become more aggressive with auditing, exceptions, and cost containment, these pressures limit firms' ability to retain talent. Cost containment measures affect morale at insurance defense firms. The dynamic limits rate increases while firms compete for talent with firms in other practice areas that can offer higher compensation.

Pacific Northwest Legal Market

Regional Context

The Pacific Northwest legal market has experienced consolidation. In September 2024, Ballard Spahr and Lane Powell agreed to combine effective January 1, 2025, creating a combined firm of more than 750 attorneys in 18 U.S. offices. Ballard Spahr gained three new offices in Seattle, Portland, and Anchorage. Lane Powell, founded in 1875, was one of the largest law firms in the Pacific Northwest with nearly 180 attorneys.

The Pacific Northwest legal market has distinct characteristics. Seattle serves as a major gateway for trade with Asia thanks to its port, the 8th largest in the U.S. The city is home to large companies including Amazon, Starbucks, Boeing, Nordstrom, Expeditors International, and Microsoft. Litigation is a particularly active market in Seattle.

Portland hosts athletic and footwear manufacturers including adidas, Nike, and Columbia Sportswear. Oregon's legal services sector operates within an economic ecosystem where professional and business services contribute $38.5 billion to state GDP.

Wilson Elser's Pacific Northwest expansion included multiple waves of Bullivant attorneys through 2025. National firms with deeper resources hired Bullivant attorneys during the wind-down. The broader bankruptcy filing environment provides context. Bankruptcy filings rose 13.1 percent during the 12-month period ending March 31, 2025, with business filings rising 5.6 percent to 24,039. Industry analysts note that 83% of sector professionals expect restructuring mandates to grow significantly or modestly over the next two years.

Professional Retentions

Angeion Group acquired Donlin Recano in February 2025. Donlin Recano has served over 200 national clients across diverse industries, providing claims management, noticing, and bankruptcy case administration services.

Frequently Asked Questions

What was Bullivant Houser Bailey PC?

Bullivant Houser Bailey PC was a Pacific Northwest law firm founded in Portland, Oregon in 1938. At its peak, the firm had offices in Portland, Seattle, and San Francisco with more than 200 attorneys focused primarily on insurance defense, coverage litigation, professional liability, and admiralty and maritime law. The firm received Tier 1 rankings from U.S. News & World Report for Insurance Law and Admiralty & Maritime Law.

Why did Bullivant Houser Bailey close?

The firm closed following failed merger discussions with an Am Law 200 firm in September 2025. Over 30 attorneys departed to Wilson Elser and Kennedys in the months before closure. The shareholders voted to dissolve on September 23, 2025, and the firm ceased operations on November 1, 2025 after more than 80 years of service.

Why did the firm file for bankruptcy rather than simply dissolving?

The bankruptcy filing enables an orderly liquidation process and allows the firm to seek subordination of approximately $1.64 million in former shareholder capital repayment claims under Section 510(b) of the Bankruptcy Code. If successful, this subordination would place former shareholder claims behind trade creditors and employee priority claims by treating former shareholder claims as equity rather than general unsecured claims.

What is Section 510(b) subordination?

Section 510(b) of the Bankruptcy Code subordinates claims arising from the purchase or sale of securities to the level of the underlying security. The debtor argues former shareholders' capital repayment claims should be treated as equity interests rather than general unsecured claims because capital contributions to a law firm partnership function similarly to equity investments. Shareholders assumed the risk of firm performance and should not compete with trade creditors who had no such upside.

What happened to the firm's employees?

The firm had 8 active employees at filing. The court authorized payment of prepetition wages subject to the Section 507(a)(5) priority cap of $17,150 per employee for wages and benefits earned within 180 days of filing. A severance trust account of $126,779 was established pre-bankruptcy.

What assets does the estate have?

The estate holds approximately $2 million in collectible accounts receivable, $968,796 in operating funds, and $126,779 in a severance trust account. Secured debt to Columbia Bank ($377,492) was paid in full pre-petition, leaving the estate with no secured obligations.

What are the major liabilities?

Major liabilities include $1.64 million in former shareholder capital claims (subject to the Section 510(b) subordination dispute), approximately $450,000 in trade debt, and an estimated $1.75 million in contingent lease claims from the firm's multi-location footprint.

What is the timeline for the bankruptcy case?

The Section 341 Meeting of Creditors is scheduled for January 16, 2026, with a status conference on February 6, 2026. Non-government creditors must file proofs of claim by April 16, 2026.

How does Bullivant's dissolution compare to other law firm bankruptcies?

Bullivant follows a pattern of major law firm failures including Dewey & LeBoeuf (2012, 1,300 attorneys), Heller Ehrman (2008, 730 attorneys), Howrey (2011, 700+ attorneys), and LeClairRyan (2019, 385 attorneys). Common factors include partner departures and revenue loss, capital repayment obligations that create cash demands during financial stress, and failed merger attempts followed by departures.

What were the firm's practice strengths before closure?

The firm was recognized for Insurance Law and Admiralty & Maritime Law, with Tier 1 rankings from U.S. News & World Report. Chambers USA ranked the firm Band 1 for Insurance in Washington. The firm served as the exclusive California member of Insuralex Global Insurance Lawyers Group, an insurance and reinsurance law firm network.

---

For more bankruptcy case analyses and restructuring insights, visit ElevenFlo's bankruptcy blog.