investment discussion

Private Equity and Law Firm MSOs: What Changed in 2026

Law firm MSO regulations are no longer theoretical. In 2026, several states rewrote the rules on private equity investment in law firms within months of each other, some opening the door wider and some slamming it shut. Arizona and Utah continue to allow outside ownership through licensed structures. California and Colorado moved the other direction, passing statutes that restrict fee-sharing and non-lawyer control. For any firm owner weighing outside capital, a merger, or a sale, where your firm is licensed now matters as much as what your firm is worth. What Is an MSO, and Why Are Law Firms Using One? A management services organization, or MSO, is a separate company that owns and runs the non-legal side of a law firm, things like marketing, billing, HR, IT, and facilities, while the law firm itself stays 100% owned and controlled by licensed attorneys. A private equity investor buys a stake in the MSO, not in the law firm. This split-entity structure exists because Model Rule 5.4, in most states, still bars non-lawyers from owning a stake in a law practice or sharing in its legal fees. The MSO lets outside capital fund growth and infrastructure without technically owning the practice of law. Is Private Equity Investment in Law Firms Legal? It depends entirely on the state, and the rules changed significantly in 2026. A properly structured MSO is legal in every state because it does not involve non-lawyer ownership of the law firm itself. A true alternative business structure, or ABS, which allows non-lawyers to own an equity stake directly in a law firm, is legal in only a handful of jurisdictions. Arizona eliminated its version of Rule 5.4 outright and now licenses ABS entities directly, and Utah runs a regulatory sandbox that permits similar arrangements under supervision. Which States Changed Their Rules in 2026? The regulatory map moved in both directions this year. Here is where things stand. State 2026 Status What It Means Arizona Open Eliminated Rule 5.4; licenses ABS entities with non-lawyer ownership directly. Utah Open (sandbox) Regulatory sandbox permits non-lawyer investment in supervised legal services entities. Puerto Rico Open (capped) Approved non-lawyer ownership capped at 49%, effective 2026. California Restricted AB 931, signed October 2025, bars California lawyers from fee-sharing with most out-of-state ABS entities through January 1, 2030. Flat-fee MSOs that do not pay for referrals or scale with recovery amounts are carved out. Colorado Restricted HB26-1421, signed June 2026, writes the Rule 5.4 fee-sharing prohibition into statute and adds civil remedies, including a private right of action. Washington, Indiana, Minnesota Considering Reportedly evaluating Utah-style regulatory sandboxes. Tennessee Considering Examining whether to modify or eliminate Rule 5.4 restrictions as part of access-to-justice reform. Two things follow from this. First, a structure that works for a firm in Phoenix may not work for the same firm in Sacramento. Second, because MSO structures do not require non-lawyer ownership of the law firm itself, they remain viable in far more states than direct ABS ownership, which is exactly why MSOs, not ABS entities, are driving most of the current deal activity. Why Deals Are Still Moving Fast Despite the Uncertainty Regulatory ambiguity has not slowed private equity interest in law firms. It has mostly redirected it toward MSO structures in permissive states. In January 2026, Louisiana personal injury firm Dudley DeBosier Injury Lawyers partnered with PE-backed Orion Legal to spin off marketing, finance, technology, and administration into an MSO. Rimon PC has taken a similar path, moving its back-office functions into a separate entity called Briefly and selling a stake to private equity firm AlpineX. At the largest end of the market, Morgan & Morgan reportedly hired JPMorgan to explore a minority stake sale that could raise more than $1 billion, and McDermott Will & Schulte has confirmed it is in preliminary discussions about an MSO-style restructuring after reports that outside investors approached the firm. This is happening against a backdrop of broader consolidation. Fairfax Associates tracked 59 completed law firm mergers in 2025, an 18% increase over 2024, with 25 more announced in the first quarter of 2026 alone. The same data shows that most of this activity involves smaller firms, not the AmLaw giants. In 2025, 76% of all law firm mergers involved at least one firm with between five and 20 lawyers, which means the MSO and consolidation wave is already reaching firms much closer in size to a typical LPE client than the headline deals suggest. What This Means If You Are Considering Outside Capital or a Sale Regulatory uncertainty cuts both ways for a firm owner. On one hand, MSO structures give small and midsize firms a real path to outside capital, succession funding, or an exit that did not exist a few years ago. On the other hand, no state bar has yet issued model governance standards for law firm MSOs, and no court has clearly defined the line between permissible management services and impermissible control over legal decisions. Arrangements that start with clean governance can drift toward investor control over staffing, intake, and case decisions in ways that create real ethics exposure for the licensed attorneys who remain nominally in charge. Before signing any MSO or ABS-adjacent agreement, an owner should confirm the structure is valid in every state where the firm practices or markets, understand exactly which decisions stay with licensed attorneys versus the MSO, and get an independent valuation of both the law firm and the MSO assets rather than accepting a single blended number from the buyer’s side of the table. Frequently Asked Questions What is the difference between an MSO and an ABS? An MSO lets a private equity investor buy a stake in a separate company that manages a law firm’s non-legal operations, while the law firm itself stays fully lawyer-owned. An ABS, or alternative business structure, allows a non-lawyer to hold direct equity in the law firm and its legal fees. MSOs are legal nationwide when structured correctly. ABS ownership is legal only in

Read More
private capital lawyer handshake

McDermott Will & Schulte and Private Capital: What It Means for Smaller Law Firms

Big shifts may be underway in how law firms are financed and structured, and that matters for buyers of smaller practices everywhere. The legal industry has long resisted private capital and non-lawyer ownership due to ethical restrictions that prevent outside parties from owning law firms directly. But recent developments at one of the largest U.S. firms could signal a change in the landscape. McDermott Will & Schulte, the new global powerhouse formed by the merger of McDermott Will & Emery and Schulte Roth & Zabel, is publicly exploring the possibility of selling a stake to outside investors under a managed services structure—a novel approach that separates lawyer ownership from back-office services so investors can participate without violating ownership rules. This exploratory discussion is preliminary, but even the possibility is significant for the future of law firm investment. Why This Matters: Breaking the Traditional Ownership Model In most U.S. jurisdictions, ethics rules require that law firms remain owned by licensed lawyers. Non-lawyer investment that touches legal fees is prohibited by ABA Rule 5.4, making direct private equity stakes in law firms difficult or impossible under standard structures. While some stats like Arizona have loosened their rules for non-lawyer ownership, it will take a while to see if this trend spreads to other jurisdictions. The managed services organization (MSO) approach under consideration for McDermott’s deal would create two businesses: a lawyer-owned entity that provides legal services and a separate MSO that handles back-office functions. Investors could take a financial stake in the MSO and share in revenues tied to administrative services paid for by the law firm. If it happens, such a transaction could be a watershed moment not just for Big Law, but for firms of all sizes that are navigating succession, acquisition, and growth amid evolving capital options. What the McDermott Talks Signal for Buyers Even though the discussions are early and no deal is finalized, the conversation itself signals a few broader trends that buyers should pay attention to: Increasing openness to alternative capital solutions. Firms may be more willing to explore models beyond partner capital to fund growth, tech investment, and succession liquidity. Potential model validation. If a large law firm can structure investment deals without ethical conflict, it could accelerate similar conversations across the industry. Pressure on smaller firms. Buyers and sellers at the mid-market level may find themselves competing with better-capitalized platforms or having to demonstrate why independent practice is still attractive. Private Capital, MSOs, and the Legal Market: A Primer Private capital refers to investments from non-public sources such as private equity firms, family offices, or strategic investors. In many industries, private capital fuels expansion, technology upgrades, acquisitions, and professionalization. In law, that standard model has been constrained by professional regulations. An MSO (Managed Services Organization) is a structure used in other professional fields (like healthcare and accounting) to separate non-legal functions—billing, HR, technology, facilities—from legal practice. Investors can own part of an MSO and share in the revenues generated by the services it provides to the law firm, without directly owning or controlling legal work. While this structure still presents challenges, it’s one of the few models that can comply with regulatory prohibitions on non-lawyer ownership while bringing outside capital into the ecosystem. What Smaller Firm Buyers Can Take Away Whether you are acquiring a solo or small firm, merging a platform, or scaling a multi-office practice, several themes emerge from the McDermott situation that are relevant to your strategy. Private Capital Isn’t Just for Big Firms If MSO deals or similar structures gain traction at the largest firms, smaller practices could eventually adopt similar models, accessing capital to support growth, succession, technology investments, or lateral recruiting. These options may be especially relevant for firms that: Need liquidity for retiring partners Want to invest in tech or operations to remain competitive Seek strategic scale through acquisitions or mergers Buyers Should Know Their Financing Options Traditional acquisition financing has typically meant seller financing, partner capital, or bank debt. But a future with private capital alternatives could give buyers extra leverage or flexibility, particularly when seller expectations around price or timing are misaligned with buyer resources. Operational Strength Matters More Than Ever Capital is more likely to flow toward law firms with: Clean financials Documented systems and processes Diversified revenue streams Clear client retention strategies Buyers who can clearly articulate and improve operational efficiency post-acquisition are more attractive to investors and more likely to realize long-term value. Deal Structures in a Changing Capital Environment Even without widespread private equity accessibility, firms are experimenting with structures that balance capital needs with regulatory restrictions. Buyers should familiarize themselves with ways deals can be structured, including: Seller financing: The seller carries part of the purchase price, tying payment to future performance. Earn-outs: A portion of price is paid based on revenue retention or client continuity post-close. Phased transitions: Sellers stay on in advisory roles during client and staff transition periods. MSO-linked capital: Back-office revenues are monetized through separate entities that accept outside investment. Each structure has advantages and risks, and each depends on the specific circumstances of the firms involved. Looking Ahead: What This Could Mean for the Market If McDermott or another large firm successfully structures outside investment, it could catalyze broader acceptance of alternative capital strategies across the legal industry, from large firms down through mid-market and boutique practices. Over time, that could lead to: More capital availability for acquisitions and growth Greater professionalization of operations Wider acceptance of hybrid ownership models A more dynamic market for law firm mergers and acquisitions For buyers willing to stay educated, strategic, and adaptable, this evolving landscape represents not just change, but opportunity. Contact  The Law Practice Exchange today to learn more about private equity and what a potential sale could mean for your law firm.

Read More
Private equity buyers

How Private Equity Buyers Can Invest in the Right Law Firm

The legal services market has increasingly attracted private equity attention in recent years, and for good reason. Law firms represent stable, recurring revenue businesses with strong client relationships and predictable cash flows. However, investing in law firms presents unique challenges that differ significantly from other professional services acquisitions. Unlike traditional businesses, law firms operate under strict ethical rules, face jurisdictional restrictions on ownership structures, and depend heavily on professional relationships that can be difficult to transfer. For private equity buyers looking to enter the legal services market, success hinges on understanding these nuances and identifying firms with the right characteristics for sustainable growth and returns. This guide outlines the critical factors private equity investors should evaluate when considering law firm investments and how to identify opportunities that align with your investment thesis. Understanding Regulatory Landscapes and Ownership Structures Before diving into specific investment criteria, private equity buyers must navigate the complex regulatory environment governing law firm ownership. In the United States, most jurisdictions prohibit non-lawyer ownership of traditional law firms under Rule 5.4 of the Model Rules of Professional Conduct. However, several states—including Arizona, Utah, and others exploring regulatory reform—have created alternative business structures that permit non-lawyer investment. Successful private equity investors in the legal space typically pursue one of several strategies: Alternative Business Structures (ABS): Investing in firms operating in jurisdictions that permit non-lawyer ownership Ancillary Services Models: Acquiring the non-legal services components while attorneys retain ownership of the legal practice Management Services Organizations (MSOs): Providing administrative, marketing, and operational services while lawyers maintain professional independence Consolidation Platforms: Building networks of affiliated practices under a common operational framework Understanding which model aligns with your investment strategy and risk tolerance is essential before evaluating specific opportunities. Each structure carries different levels of control, compliance obligations, and growth potential. Identifying Law Firms with Scalable Business Models for Private Equity Buyers Not all law firms are suitable for private equity investment. The most attractive targets demonstrate business characteristics that transcend individual attorney relationships and can scale through operational improvements, technology implementation, or strategic growth initiatives. When evaluating potential law firm investments, private equity buyers should prioritize practices with these scalability indicators: Process-Driven Practice Areas Firms focused on high-volume, repeatable legal work offer greater scalability than those dependent on bespoke, relationship-intensive services. Practice areas such as personal injury, immigration, estate planning, family law, and consumer bankruptcy typically feature standardizable processes that can be systematized and expanded. These practices benefit from technology implementation, workflow optimization, and team-based service delivery models that reduce dependence on individual attorneys. Diversified Revenue Streams The right law firm investment demonstrates revenue diversification across multiple dimensions—client concentration, case types, referral sources, and geographic markets. Firms overly dependent on a handful of clients or a single referral relationship present significant risk. Look for practices with broad-based demand, multiple marketing channels, and client bases that can withstand individual relationship disruptions. Established Infrastructure and Systems Law firms that have already invested in operational infrastructure offer faster paths to returns. Evaluate whether target firms have implemented practice management software, documented workflows, trained support staff, and marketing systems. Firms still operating with paper files, manual processes, and minimal administrative support require substantial post-acquisition investment before generating improved returns. Financial Due Diligence: Beyond Traditional Metrics Financial analysis of law firm investments requires looking beyond standard EBITDA multiples and revenue growth rates. The unique economics of legal practices demand deeper investigation into revenue quality, realization rates, and the true sustainability of cash flows. Analyzing Revenue Quality and Predictability Not all law firm revenue is created equal. Contingency-based practices like personal injury firms have revenue recognized when cases settle, creating lumpier cash flows but also tangible case inventory that represents future value. Hourly billing practices generate more predictable monthly revenue but may depend heavily on specific attorney productivity. Flat-fee or subscription models offer the most predictable revenue but may face margin pressure. Examine the firm’s revenue composition carefully. What percentage comes from recurring clients versus one-time engagements? How dependent is revenue on the founding attorney versus associate attorneys or of-counsel relationships? What are the historical realization and collection rates? These metrics reveal revenue sustainability more accurately than gross revenue figures alone. Understanding True Profitability Many law firms, particularly smaller practices, don’t maintain financial statements that reflect true economic profit. Owner compensation may be artificially low or high, discretionary expenses might obscure underlying profitability, and capital expenditures may be deferred. Private equity buyers must normalize financial statements to understand actual operating performance and identify opportunities for margin improvement. Key areas to investigate include: Attorney compensation structures and market comparability Overhead allocation and opportunities for shared services Technology expenses and potential efficiency gains Marketing spend effectiveness and client acquisition costs Real estate obligations and opportunities for optimization Staff turnover and owner attorney succession planning Evaluating Cultural Fit and Management Transition as a Private Equity Buyer Perhaps the most overlooked aspect of law firm investments is cultural compatibility and leadership transition planning. Unlike many businesses where operational changes can be implemented quickly, law firms require careful management of professional relationships, ethical obligations, and attorney autonomy. Attorney Retention and Incentive Alignment The success of any law firm investment depends on retaining key attorneys post-acquisition. Private equity buyers must design compensation structures that align attorney incentives with firm growth while respecting professional independence. This might include earnouts tied to revenue maintenance, equity participation for key producers, or performance-based bonuses that reward both individual contribution and firm-wide success. Understanding each attorney’s motivations is critical. Some may be seeking retirement transition support, others might want growth capital to expand their practice, and still others may simply need operational relief. The right investment structure addresses these varying needs while protecting your capital investment. Operational Management Capabilities Many law firms lack professional management beyond the practicing attorneys themselves. Identifying or installing experienced legal industry operators who can implement best practices, drive efficiency improvements, and scale operations is often necessary for investment success. Evaluate whether the target firm has—or is open to—professional management, including dedicated roles for

Read More

LPE NEWSLETTER

Subscribe To The LPE Newsletter