Law Firm Ownership: Can Non-Lawyers Invest In Florida?

In the United States, the general rule is that only licensed attorneys can own law firms. However, there are a few exceptions, such as in Washington, D.C., where non-lawyers can hold minority stakes. In Florida, the Bar Ethics Rules prohibit a lawyer or law firm from sharing legal fees with a non-lawyer. The Florida Bar's Board of Governors has also unanimously voted to reject proposals to allow non-lawyers to own minority stakes in law firms. This has been a point of contention, with some arguing that non-lawyer ownership would bring new ideas and innovation to law firms, while others believe it would lead to a focus on profits over the best interests of clients.

Non-lawyer ownership of law firms in the US

Historical Context

Historically, the default rule in the US has been that non-lawyers cannot own law firms. This rule was solidified with the American Bar Association's (ABA) release of Attorney Rule of Professional Conduct 5.4 in 1983, which placed several restrictions on lawyers working with non-lawyers. These included prohibiting fee-sharing with non-lawyers, forming partnerships with non-lawyers involving the practice of law, and allowing non-lawyers to hold ownership interests, directorships, or any position that could influence a lawyer's professional judgment.

Current Landscape

While the traditional rule still prevails in most states, there is a growing movement towards exploring alternative business structures that allow for non-lawyer ownership. The District of Columbia has long been an exception, permitting non-lawyers to hold minority stakes under specific circumstances. Recently, Washington state and a few other jurisdictions have joined this exception list.

Florida's Position

Florida has been at the centre of this debate, with a Special Committee formed in 2019 to investigate the possibility of allowing non-lawyer firm members to hold minority ownership stakes. However, in November 2021, the Florida Bar Board of Governors unanimously voted to reject the proposal, citing concerns about profit-driven motives taking precedence over clients' best interests. This decision was supported by the Florida Supreme Court, maintaining the status quo of lawyer-only ownership in the state.

Impact and Future Prospects

The rejection of non-attorney ownership in Florida is seen as a missed opportunity for innovation and improved access to justice. Proponents argue that non-lawyer ownership could enhance marketing, finance systems, and project management within law firms, making legal services more accessible and affordable for those who need them.

The future of non-lawyer ownership in the US may depend on the success of regulatory frameworks in pioneering states like Arizona and Utah. If these programs demonstrate positive outcomes, more states may be encouraged to follow suit, leading to a potential shift in the traditional ownership model of law firms across the country.

Rule 5.4 and its restrictions

Rule 5.4, also known as the "Professional Independence of a Lawyer", places several restrictions on lawyers working with non-lawyers. The rule was first released in 1983 by the American Bar Association (ABA).

Rule 5.4 restrictions include:

• Preventing lawyers or law firms from sharing fees with non-lawyers, except under specific circumstances, such as when a lawyer undertakes to complete unfinished legal work of a deceased lawyer.
• Preventing lawyers from forming partnerships with non-lawyers involving the practice of law.
• Preventing lawyers from practising with a firm if a non-lawyer owns any interest in that firm, is a director or officer of the firm, or has the right to direct or control a lawyer's professional judgment.
• Preventing law firms from offering ownership or other investment/revenue-sharing opportunities to non-lawyers.

The Florida Bar and Florida Supreme Court have rejected non-attorney ownership, voting unanimously to reject proposed amendments to Rule 5.4 that would have allowed minority ownership in law firms by non-lawyer firm employees. The main concern is that non-attorney ownership would lead firms to prioritise profits over the best interests of clients.

However, there is a growing recognition that non-lawyer ownership of firms may not be harmful, and could even improve access to justice by driving innovation in marketing, finance systems, and project management.

The Florida Bar's rejection of non-attorney ownership

The Florida Bar has been criticised for its rejection of non-attorney ownership of law firms, a stance that goes against the tide of change in the US and other countries. The default rule in the US has been that non-lawyers cannot own law firms, but this is changing, with many states relaxing this prohibition.

In 2021, there was hope that Florida would be a leader in innovation by allowing non-attorney ownership of law firms. However, the Florida Bar's Board of Governors rejected the committee's recommendations, citing concerns that non-attorney ownership would lead firms to prioritise profits over the best interests of clients. This decision has been criticised as disingenuous, as large law firms in the US have substantially increased their profits in recent years.

The Florida Bar's stance is at odds with the growing recognition that non-attorney ownership of firms may not be harmful. In fact, it may serve the public well to break down this blanket prohibition, as it has worked well in other countries. Allowing non-attorney ownership could bring more innovation, improved service, and reduced prices, as seen in Arizona, England, Wales, and British Columbia, which have all amended their rules to allow it.

Furthermore, the prohibition on non-attorney ownership creates a barrier to increased access to justice. Research suggests that attorney-only ownership leads to failed innovation in marketing, finance systems, and project management. It also stunts access to justice by stifling outside investment and reducing capital, making it harder for law firms to innovate their business practices. As a result, most people who need legal services cannot afford them, and 86% of low-income Americans do not receive the civil legal services they need for matters such as evictions, child custody, and debt collection.

The future of non-lawyer ownership in Florida

The idea of non-lawyer ownership of law firms is gaining traction in the United States, with many states relaxing their prohibitions. However, in Florida, the future of non-lawyer ownership appears uncertain. The Florida Bar and Florida Supreme Court have historically rejected non-attorney ownership, citing concerns about profit-driven motives and potential conflicts of interest. Despite growing recognition of the benefits of non-attorney ownership, Florida's Bar Ethics Rules continue to prohibit lawyers or law firms from sharing legal fees with non-lawyers, with limited exceptions.

In late 2019, a Special Committee was formed in Florida to explore the possibility of allowing non-lawyer firm members to hold minority ownership stakes in law firms. Unfortunately, in November 2021, the Florida Bar Board of Governors unanimously voted against amending the Florida Bar Rules to permit this. The committee's recommendations, which included allowing non-lawyer employees to own a portion of law firms, were not adopted. This decision was influenced by the concern that non-attorney ownership could lead to prioritizing profits over the best interests of clients.

While Florida has not embraced non-lawyer ownership, a few jurisdictions in the United States, such as Washington, D.C., and Washington State, provide exceptions where non-lawyers can hold minority stakes. Additionally, Utah and Arizona have implemented innovative approaches, with Arizona eliminating Rule 5.4 entirely and introducing licensing for Alternate Business Structures partially owned by non-lawyers. These developments indicate a shift in perspective and a recognition of the potential benefits of non-traditional ownership structures.

The demand for efficient and affordable legal services is high, and traditional law firms may struggle to meet this need. As a result, there may be growing pressure for Florida to reconsider its stance on non-lawyer ownership. The success of innovative regulatory frameworks in other states could influence Florida's future decisions. However, for now, Florida remains committed to the traditional model of lawyer ownership in law firms.

Pros and cons of non-lawyer ownership

While non-lawyer ownership of law firms is gaining traction in the U.S., the Florida Bar and Florida Supreme Court have rejected the idea. Nevertheless, it is worth considering the pros and cons of non-lawyer ownership.

Pros of non-lawyer ownership

• Increased access to capital and innovation, as well as greater public access to legal services.
• Non-attorney-owned legal practices have worked well in other countries, and breaking down the blanket prohibition may serve the public well.
• It may be beneficial for professionals with shared fiduciary concepts, such as an accountant and a lawyer, to own a law and accounting practice together, creating excellent synergy.

Cons of non-lawyer ownership

• Non-lawyer owners are typically not bound by professional conduct rules, and may prioritize profits over meeting ethical duties and providing good legal services.
• Attorney-client confidentiality may be at risk as non-lawyers would have access to client information.
• Private equity investment in law firms may lead to a focus on profits over the best interests of the clients, with shareholders prioritizing returns over what is best for the client.

Frequently asked questions