Law Firm Ownership: Non-Lawyers In California

The American Bar Association's Model Rule 5.4, released in 1983, states that a lawyer or law firm shall not share legal fees with a nonlawyer and that a lawyer shall not form a partnership with a nonlawyer if any of the activities of the partnership consist of the practice of law. This rule has been the standard in most U.S. jurisdictions, including California, which does not allow non-lawyer ownership of law firms. However, there are a few exceptions, such as in Washington, D.C., where non-lawyers can hold minority stakes, and Utah and Arizona, which have instituted regulatory sandboxes to oversee non-traditional firms with non-lawyer ownership. With a growing trend towards allowing non-lawyer ownership, can a non-lawyer own a law firm in California?

California permits fee-sharing with non-attorney-owned non-profits

In the United States, the general rule is that only licensed attorneys can own law firms. The long-standing default rule in U.S. jurisdictions has been that non-lawyers cannot own law firms. The American Bar Association's (ABA) Model Rule 5.4, subsection (a), states that " [a] lawyer or law firm shall not share legal fees with a nonlawyer", while subsection (b) holds that "a lawyer shall not form a partnership with a nonlawyer if any of the activities of the partnership consist of the practice of law." However, this rule has been challenged by multiple law firms, arguing that it prevents them from fully representing clients against larger, better-funded opponents.

In California, while non-lawyer ownership of law firms is prohibited, the state does allow fee-sharing with non-attorney-owned non-profit organizations. On February 18, 2021, the California Supreme Court approved an amendment to its Rule 5.4, permitting greater fee-sharing with non-attorney-owned non-profit organizations that qualify as nonprofits under IRS Rule 501(c)(3). This amendment was initially authorized for a 60-day comment period ending May 18, 2020, and was approved by a 9-2 vote from the Board. The amendment does not permit non-attorney ownership of law firms or allow the non-profit to be directly involved in decision-making within matters in which it is not a client.

This development in California is part of a growing trend in the U.S. where states are relaxing the prohibition on non-lawyer ownership of law firms. For example, Arizona has eliminated its Rule 5.4 entirely, creating a new licensing requirement for Alternate Business Structures (ABS) that are partially owned by non-lawyers but provide legal services. Each ABS must include at least one lawyer to serve as compliance counsel. Utah has also instituted a regulatory "sandbox" to oversee non-traditional firms with non-lawyer ownership, allowing for the licensing of traditional law firms with non-lawyer ownership. These changes suggest a potential shift in how litigation matters are funded and managed in the U.S.

The American Bar Association's Rule 5.4 prohibits non-lawyers from owning law firms

The American Bar Association's Rule 5.4, also known as the "Rule on Professional Independence of a Lawyer", prohibits non-lawyers from owning law firms and sharing legal fees. The rule was established in 1983 to maintain the independence of the legal profession and prevent conflicts of interest that may arise from fee-sharing arrangements with non-attorney outside interests. While well-intentioned, critics argue that Rule 5.4 limits law firms' access to capital, discourages innovation and collaboration, and prevents the potential benefits of external businesses' expertise.

Rule 5.4 places several restrictions on lawyers working with non-lawyers. Firstly, it prohibits lawyers or law firms from sharing fees with non-lawyers, except under some narrow circumstances, such as sharing court-awarded legal fees with a nonprofit organization. Secondly, it prevents lawyers from forming partnerships with non-lawyers if any of the partnership's activities involve the practice of law. Thirdly, it prohibits lawyers from practising with a firm if a non-lawyer holds any ownership interest, is a director or officer, or has the right to direct or control the lawyer's professional judgment.

While the default rule in U.S. jurisdictions has been that non-lawyers cannot own law firms, there are a few exceptions. For example, in Washington, D.C., non-lawyers can hold minority stakes, and a few states, like California, have amended Rule 5.4 to allow greater fee-sharing with non-attorney-owned nonprofit organizations. In 2020, Utah instituted a "regulatory sandbox" to oversee non-traditional firms with non-lawyer ownership, and Arizona eliminated its Rule 5.4, allowing for Alternate Business Structures partially owned by non-lawyers. These reforms signal a shift towards exploring new approaches to non-lawyer ownership and increasing access to justice.

Despite these changes, the American Bar Association (ABA) remains committed to the current Model Rule 5.4. After extensive debate in 2020, the ABA House of Delegates passed Resolution 115, encouraging innovative approaches that do not violate the existing rule. While the ABA's position upholds the importance of professional independence, it also highlights the ongoing debate and potential for future reforms in how litigation matters are funded and managed.

Non-lawyer ownership of law firms is allowed in other countries

In the United States, the default rule in most jurisdictions has traditionally been that only licensed attorneys can own law firms. However, this is slowly changing, with many states relaxing this prohibition. Exceptions exist in Washington, D.C., Arizona, and Utah, where non-lawyers can hold minority stakes or ownership interests in law firms. California, while allowing fee-sharing with non-attorney-owned non-profit organizations, still prohibits non-lawyer ownership of law firms.

Outside the U.S., non-lawyer ownership of law firms has been permitted in several countries with some success and a low number of public complaints. Australia was the first common-law jurisdiction to allow non-lawyer-owned firms when the state of New South Wales passed authorizing legislation in 2001. The United Kingdom followed in 2011, implementing a regulatory framework for non-lawyers to take a fitness test to become firm owners and mandating the appointment of in-firm personnel to ensure compliance with lawyers' professional obligations. Canada has also allowed non-lawyer-owned organizations to provide legal services to the public since 2020, with British Columbia and Ontario instituting regulatory sandboxes similar to the Utah model. These countries have seen increased innovation and competition within their legal industries, as well as improved access to capital and diverse business plans.

Some US states are trying new approaches to non-lawyer ownership

In the United States, the general rule is that only licensed attorneys can own law firms. This rule has been in place for decades, with the American Bar Association's (ABA) Model Rule 5.4 stating that a "lawyer or law firm shall not share legal fees with a nonlawyer". The rule also prevents lawyers from forming partnerships with non-lawyers or practising with a firm if a non-lawyer has any ownership interest. The ABA's position is that this rule is necessary to keep lawyers independent in their legal advice and prevent non-lawyer owners from prioritising profits over duties to clients.

However, some US states are trying new approaches to non-lawyer ownership. In August 2020, Arizona eliminated its Rule 5.4 entirely, creating a new licensing requirement for Alternate Business Structures (ABS) that can be partially owned by non-lawyers but must include at least one lawyer as compliance counsel. Utah has also instituted a regulatory "sandbox" to oversee non-traditional firms with non-lawyer ownership, allowing for the licensing of traditional law firms with non-lawyer ownership, as well as non-lawyer-owned entities employing lawyers. California has amended its Rule 5.4 to permit greater fee-sharing with non-attorney-owned non-profit organisations, although it still prohibits non-lawyer ownership of law firms. Other states, such as Georgia and Massachusetts, have taken more modest steps towards allowing non-lawyer ownership, such as permitting law firms to share fees with non-lawyer-owned firms or organisations under certain circumstances.

While these states are leading the way in exploring new approaches to non-lawyer ownership, many other jurisdictions in the US are not currently following their example. Some states, such as Florida, have explicitly opposed proposals to allow non-lawyer ownership of law firms, citing concerns about potential conflicts of interest and negative impacts on the quality of legal services. The ABA, which drafted the original Model Rules of Professional Conduct, also maintains its stance against non-lawyer ownership.

As the landscape of law firm ownership evolves, it remains to be seen whether more US states will embrace the trend toward allowing non-lawyer ownership or continue to uphold the traditional rule.

Non-lawyers can hold minority stakes in Washington, D.C

In the United States, the general rule is that only licensed attorneys can own law firms. This rule has been in place for decades, with the American Bar Association (ABA) releasing its Model Rule 5.4 in 1983, which states that lawyers or law firms cannot share legal fees with non-lawyers and that lawyers cannot form partnerships with non-lawyers if any of the activities consist of the practice of law.

However, there are a few exceptions to this rule. In Washington, D.C., non-lawyers are permitted to hold minority stakes in law firms. This is a notable exception, as for many years, the District of Columbia was the sole jurisdiction in the country where it was possible, under limited circumstances, for lawyers to share fees with non-lawyers and for non-lawyers to hold limited ownership interests in law firms. This exception has been in place for a significant amount of time, and it is an important deviation from the standard rule followed by most other jurisdictions in the United States.

The exception in Washington, D.C., is part of a larger trend in the United States towards allowing non-lawyer ownership of firms. While it remains the default rule that non-lawyers cannot own law firms, this is slowly changing, with many states relaxing this prohibition. For example, in 2020, Utah instituted a regulatory "sandbox" to oversee non-traditional firms with non-lawyer ownership, and Arizona eliminated its Rule 5.4, creating a new licensing requirement for Alternate Business Structures ("ABS") that allow for partial non-lawyer ownership.

Additionally, some states have taken more modest steps towards allowing non-lawyer ownership. California, for instance, amended its Rule 5.4 in 2021 to permit greater fee-sharing with non-attorney-owned non-profit organizations that qualify as nonprofits under IRS rules. This amendment allows for more financial flexibility for law firms working with non-profit organizations but stops short of allowing full non-lawyer ownership of firms.

The movement towards allowing non-lawyer ownership of firms is not without opposition. Some argue that allowing non-lawyer ownership could create an inherent conflict of interest between lawyer-owners and non-lawyer owners, with the latter prioritizing profits over the duties to clients. However, proponents of the change contend that preventing law firms from partnering with non-lawyers limits opportunities to provide comprehensive services and charge lower rates due to multiple revenue streams.

As the landscape of law firm ownership continues to evolve, it remains to be seen whether more states will follow the lead of Washington, D.C., and allow non-lawyers to hold minority stakes in law firms.

Frequently asked questions