top of page
Search

Private Capital Discovers the Law Firm

  • Writer: Aişe Gül Akkoyun
    Aişe Gül Akkoyun
  • May 8
  • 3 min read

The management-services-organisation model is how private equity gets into law firms without technically owning them.


Background

Rules against non-lawyer ownership of law firms remain in force across most of the United States, but private capital has found a structure that works around them without technically breaching them: the management services organisation, or MSO. Under this model, practising attorneys retain formal ownership of the law firm itself, while a private-equity-backed vehicle acquires the operating platform sitting behind it — technology, billing, marketing, human resources, and effectively everything that is not, in the narrowest sense, "practising law."


How the model actually works

Only a small number of jurisdictions currently permit direct non-lawyer equity in a law firm. Arizona allows an Alternative Business Structure model, under which the ABS must appoint a compliance lawyer and disclose any owner holding a ten percent or greater interest or decision-making authority. Utah operates a regulatory sandbox offering limited waivers from both nonlawyer-ownership and unauthorized-practice-of-law rules, though a recent "Phase 2" adjustment has narrowed eligibility to entities with substantial in-state impact. Everywhere else, the MSO structure is the workaround: Texas's Commission on Professional Ethics has stated that lawyers and outside investors may hold equity in an MSO, provided the MSO does not take a share of legal-fee revenue and conflicts are properly managed — a formulation that leaves considerable room for interpretation about where "managing the business" ends and "practising law" begins.


Early 2026 activity

In January 2026, Uplift Investors formed Orion Legal MSO with Louisiana personal-injury firm Dudley DeBosier as a founding partner firm — an early, concrete example of the model being deployed at scale rather than discussed only in the abstract.


Why the healthcare comparison should worry regulators

The MSO structure rests on an assumption that "business operations" and "legal practice" can be cleanly separated, with private capital confined to the former. Healthcare's three decades of experience with an almost identical MSO structure for physician practices suggests the assumption does not hold reliably over time: arrangements that begin with clean governance and a genuine operations/practice divide have a documented tendency to drift toward de facto investor influence over clinical, or here professional, decisions, as the operating platform's leverage over billing, staffing and technology accumulates. Commentary tracking the legal-services version of this model explicitly describes the current regulatory rules as not ready for what the MSO structure is already doing at scale.


What would be worth measuring

  • How MSO-backed law firms' fee structures, staffing ratios, and client-intake practices compare over time with firms outside the MSO model, using the healthcare MSO literature's drift pattern as a testable hypothesis

  • How state bar ethics opinions on MSO structures compare across jurisdictions, and whether a de facto common standard is emerging through parallel state-level guidance rather than coordinated rulemaking

  • How rapidly capital is flowing into the MSO model, measured by deal count and disclosed fund sizes, relative to the pace of regulatory guidance addressing it

  • Whether Arizona's and Utah's more permissive direct-ownership models produce measurably different governance outcomes than the MSO workaround used elsewhere


The open question

If the MSO model is functionally converging on the same investor-control outcomes that direct non-lawyer ownership would produce — just achieved through a different contractual structure — then the legal profession's ownership rules may be regulating form rather than substance. Whether state bars respond by tightening MSO oversight to match the substance of what direct-ownership rules were meant to prevent, or by formally opening more Arizona- and Utah-style direct pathways instead, is the choice regulators appear to be deferring rather than making.


Related on DLS


Sources

Comments

bottom of page