Law Firm Ownership: Can Non-Lawyers Be Partners?

In the United States, non-lawyers are typically barred from owning a law firm. This is due to Rule 5.4, which was adopted by state bars to prevent non-lawyer owners from prioritizing profits over ethical duties and to protect attorney-client confidentiality. However, recent developments in several states including Arizona, Utah, and the District of Columbia, have challenged this rule, allowing non-lawyers to hold ownership interests in law firms under certain conditions. This has sparked discussions about the potential benefits of non-lawyer ownership, such as increased innovation, competition, and access to capital, as well as the potential drawbacks, such as conflicts of interest and the influence of private equity. While some argue that allowing non-lawyer ownership may improve access to legal services and reduce costs, others express concerns about the potential negative consequences for clients and the legal profession.

Can a law firm be owned by a non-lawyer?

Non-lawyer ownership of law firms is prohibited in most US states

In the US, non-lawyer ownership of law firms is prohibited in most states. Rule 5.4 of the American Bar Association's Model Rules of Professional Conduct, which has been adopted by state bars, bars non-lawyers from holding any ownership interest in law firms. This rule is based on the idea that non-lawyer owners, who are typically not bound by professional conduct rules, may prioritise profits over ethical duties and compromise attorney-client confidentiality.

However, there are a few exceptions to this rule. In 2020, Utah and Arizona made significant reforms to their legal regulations, allowing non-lawyer investment and ownership in law firms. In Utah, a regulatory "sandbox" was instituted as a pilot program to oversee non-traditional firms with non-lawyer ownership. The program has been extended from two years to seven years, and as of March 2022, 31 organisations have been approved to offer a range of legal services. Arizona, meanwhile, eliminated Rule 5.4, allowing non-lawyers to hold an ownership interest in an Alternative Business Structure (ABS) licensed by the state to provide legal services. These ABSs can act as "one-stop shops," providing both legal and non-legal services.

Other states have also made more modest changes that fall short of allowing non-attorney ownership interests in law firms. For example, California's version of Rule 5.4 permits greater fee-sharing with non-attorney-owned nonprofits, while Georgia firms may work and share fees with non-lawyer-owned firms and legal organisations in other jurisdictions.

While non-lawyer ownership of law firms is still prohibited in most US states, recent developments suggest that this could change in the future. Some legal ethics scholars and lawyers argue that the profit motive is already a central part of law practice, and that non-lawyer ownership of firms may not be as harmful as previously imagined.

Arizona and Utah have allowed non-lawyer ownership of law firms

In the United States, non-lawyers are typically barred from holding any ownership interest in law firms. Rule 5.4, which has been adopted by state bars, effectively prevents non-lawyer ownership of legal practices. This rule is in place to prevent non-lawyer owners from prioritizing profits over ethical duties and to protect attorney-client confidentiality.

However, there are a few exceptions to this rule. Arizona and Utah have allowed non-lawyer ownership of law firms, with some restrictions. In 2020, the Arizona Supreme Court eliminated Rule 5.4, allowing non-lawyers to hold an ownership interest in an Alternative Business Structure (ABS) that is licensed by the state to provide legal services. These ABSs must have at least one Arizona-licensed attorney as their compliance lawyer and are subject to the Arizona Supreme Court Rules of Professional Conduct. Arizona's move towards allowing non-lawyer ownership of law firms is seen as a potential roadmap for other states considering similar reforms.

Utah has also instituted a regulatory "sandbox" to oversee non-traditional firms with non-lawyer ownership. This two-year pilot program has been extended to seven years and is managed by the Utah Office of Legal Services Innovation, which licenses and regulates ABSs and alternative legal providers (ALPs) within the state. Utah's model allows for the licensing of traditional law firms with non-lawyer ownership and has resulted in the opening of the first entirely non-lawyer-owned law firm in the United States, known as "Law on Call."

The trend towards allowing non-lawyer ownership of law firms in these states reflects a growing recognition that such ownership may not be harmful. In fact, it may even serve the public well by breaking down blanket prohibitions and increasing innovation, competition, and access to capital within the legal industry. Additionally, other countries, such as Australia, have successfully permitted non-lawyer ownership of law firms, indicating that it is possible to maintain standards while opening up ownership options.

The District of Columbia permits non-lawyer ownership of law firms under certain conditions

In the United States, the District of Columbia is the only place that permits non-lawyer ownership of law firms, and even then, only under certain conditions. This rule is outlined in D.C. Rule of Professional Conduct 5.4(b), which states that non-lawyers can have a financial interest in a law firm as long as specified conditions are met. These conditions include that the firm must be limited to providing legal services to clients, and the non-lawyer partner must comply with the Rules of Professional Conduct and assure that compliance is met.

The District of Columbia's rule is unique in that it permits lawyers to form partnerships with non-lawyers, which was previously barred by the traditional Rule 5.4(b). This rule was designed to maintain the independence of judgement of lawyers without concern for firm revenue by eliminating external business influences and conflicts. It also aimed to prevent non-lawyer owners, who are typically not bound by professional conduct rules, from prioritizing profits over meeting ethical duties and protecting attorney-client confidentiality.

Despite these concerns, there has been a growing recognition that non-lawyer ownership of firms may not be harmful. In fact, other countries, such as Australia and the UK, have permitted non-lawyer ownership with some success and a low number of public complaints. These countries have seen increased innovation and competition within their legal industries, as well as improved access to capital and varied business plans.

In contrast to the District of Columbia's rule, other states in the US, such as Arizona and Utah, have only recently begun to permit non-lawyer ownership of law firms under specific circumstances. For example, in Arizona, a non-lawyer can hold an ownership interest in an Alternative Business Structure (ABS) that provides legal services, but the ABS must have at least one Arizona-licensed attorney as its compliance lawyer.

Non-lawyer ownership of law firms is allowed in Australia and the UK

In most places, non-attorneys cannot own law firms due to ethical rules preventing conflicts of interest and protecting independent legal advice. The U.S., following the ABA's Model Rule 5.4, generally prohibits non-lawyer ownership of law firms. However, non-lawyer ownership of law firms is allowed in Australia and the UK through Alternative Business Structures (ABS).

Australia became the first common-law jurisdiction to allow non-lawyer-owned firms when the state of New South Wales passed authorizing legislation in 2001. The UK followed suit in 2011, establishing a regulatory framework for non-lawyers to take a fitness test to become firm owners. The UK also requires the appointment of in-firm personnel to ensure compliance with legal regulations.

In the UK, the Legal Services Act 2007 reformed legal services in England and Wales, increasing the number of consumer-focused legal services providers. This act created the Legal Services Board (LSB), a supervisory body that oversees eight approved regulators in the legal services market. It also established the Office for Legal Complaints to deal with the initial stages of consumer complaints about legal services.

In 2020, the Arizona Supreme Court in the U.S. adopted changes to the state's legal ethics rules, eliminating Rule 5.4. Since 2021, a non-lawyer can hold an ownership interest in an entity known as an Alternative Business Structure (ABS) licensed by the state to provide legal services. The ABS must have at least one Arizona-licensed attorney to act as its compliance lawyer. Utah has also instituted a regulatory "sandbox" to oversee non-traditional firms with non-lawyer ownership, creating the Utah Office of Legal Services Innovation to license and regulate ABSs and alternative legal providers (ALPs) within the state.

Arguments for and against non-lawyer ownership of law firms

Arguments for non-lawyer ownership of law firms:

Non-lawyer ownership of law firms can bring about increased innovation and competition within the legal industry. This has been observed in countries like Australia, the first common-law jurisdiction to allow non-lawyer-owned firms, and the UK, where Alternative Business Structures (ABS) have grown substantially, amounting to about one in ten law firms in 2021. ABSs provide a range of services and include businesses mixing law with other professions, such as accounting. Proponents of non-lawyer ownership argue that it can foster innovation and increase access to legal services, particularly for those who may not be able to afford a full-service law firm. They also argue that it can help law firms expand their services and charge lower rates to clients due to multiple revenue streams.

Additionally, there has been a growing recognition that non-lawyer ownership of firms may not be as harmful as previously thought. Non-attorney-owned legal practices have worked well in other countries, and breaking down this prohibition may serve the public well. For example, a non-lawyer employee owning equity in a firm may improve business administration and firm management.

Arguments against non-lawyer ownership of law firms:

A significant argument against non-lawyer ownership of law firms is the potential conflict of interest that may arise, as lawyers are fiduciaries to their clients and must uphold ethical obligations and professional conduct rules. Allowing non-lawyers to have decision-making authority in the day-to-day practice of law may compromise the independence of lawyers and the profession as a whole. There are also concerns that non-lawyer owners, driven by profit motives, may prioritize financial gains over meeting ethical duties and providing good legal services. Furthermore, client confidentiality could be at risk if non-lawyers have access to sensitive client information.

Some critics also argue that non-lawyer ownership does not effectively address the access-to-justice crisis and, in fact, creates meaningful risks for the legal profession. They contend that smaller firms or those facing revenue shortfalls, which are more likely to seek outside investment, are not attractive candidates for equity investment. Thus, non-lawyer ownership may not bring about the intended benefits.

Frequently asked questions