Law Firm Ownership: Non-Lawyers In Georgia

The topic of non-lawyer ownership of law firms has been a subject of debate in the United States, with the exception of Washington, D.C., and a few other states, the general rule has been that only licensed attorneys can own law firms. This is based on the reasoning that non-lawyer owners are typically not bound by professional conduct rules and might prioritize profits over ethical duties and providing good legal services. However, there is a growing recognition that non-lawyer ownership of firms may not be harmful, and some states like California, Utah, and Georgia have implemented legislation changes allowing non-lawyers to own law firms.

Non-lawyers can own law firms in Washington, D.C

In the United States, the default rule has been that non-lawyers cannot own law firms. However, this is changing, with some states relaxing this prohibition. One notable exception to this rule is Washington, D.C., where non-lawyers can own minority stakes in law firms. This unique rule has attracted attention from firms outside the Beltway that want to move to or open offices in Washington, D.C., as they are barred from having non-lawyer partners in their own states.

The District of Columbia Bar's rules are the most lenient in the nation, allowing lawyers and non-lawyers to jointly own law firms that solely provide legal services. When there is joint ownership, the D.C. rules require non-lawyers to perform professional services that assist the firm in providing legal services to clients and adhere to the rules of professional conduct. This rule change provides an opportunity for law firms to add client services and collaborate with non-legal experts, enhancing their overall operations.

While there are concerns about potential conflicts of interest and ethical dilemmas, supporters of this rule change argue that attorneys can maintain their independent judgment and practice within ethical boundaries, even in organizations owned or run by non-lawyers. This is evident in other countries, such as the United Kingdom, where law firms are permitted to have non-lawyer partners.

The consideration of alternative business structures and multidisciplinary practices in Washington, D.C., allows for external investment in law firms and non-lawyer ownership. This evolution in legal practice structures aims to address lawyer shortages and enhance the delivery of legal services to clients.

Non-lawyers can hold ownership in Arizona, Utah, and the District of Columbia

In the United States, the general rule is that only licensed attorneys can own law firms. This rule is based on the American Bar Association's Rule 5.4, which places several restrictions on lawyers working with non-lawyers. Rule 5.4(b) states that "a lawyer shall not form a partnership with a non-lawyer if any of the activities of the partnership consist of the practice of law." The rule is intended to protect the professional independence of lawyers and prevent conflicts of interest.

However, there are a few exceptions to this rule. Non-lawyers can hold minority stakes in law firms in the District of Columbia, and a growing number of states are considering or adopting similar reforms. In addition, Arizona and Utah have both implemented programs that allow for non-lawyer ownership of law firms. In 2020, Arizona became the first state to permit non-attorneys to acquire a financial interest in law businesses. Utah followed suit with a "regulatory sandbox" pilot program that allowed non-lawyer investors or owners to participate in the legal industry for a two-year period. The program has since been extended for an additional five years.

The trend toward allowing non-lawyer ownership of law firms is driven by a desire to increase access to justice and reduce the cost of legal services. Proponents argue that opening up ownership to non-lawyers will provide more options for legal services and make them more affordable, especially for low-income individuals and families. Additionally, the success of non-attorney-owned legal practices in other countries has sparked a recognition that non-lawyer ownership may not be as harmful as once believed.

While there are potential benefits to allowing non-lawyer ownership of law firms, there are also challenges and concerns. Some worry that non-lawyer owners, who are not bound by the same professional conduct rules as attorneys, may prioritize profits over meeting ethical duties and providing good legal services. In addition, there are concerns about protecting attorney-client confidentiality and preventing non-lawyers from having access to sensitive client information.

As the legal landscape evolves, it is likely that more states will consider relaxing restrictions on non-lawyer ownership of law firms. However, any changes to ownership rules must carefully balance the potential benefits with the need to protect the public and maintain the integrity of the legal profession.

Georgia firms can share fees with non-lawyer-owned firms in other jurisdictions

In the United States, the general rule is that only licensed attorneys can own law firms. For decades, the default rule in U.S. jurisdictions has been that non-lawyers cannot own law firms. However, this is changing, with several states relaxing this prohibition.

Georgia is one such example. In Georgia, attorneys may work with and share fees with law firms and legal organisations in other jurisdictions, even if those entities have non-attorney ownership, provided that non-attorney ownership is allowed in those jurisdictions. This means that Georgia firms can share fees with non-lawyer-owned firms in other jurisdictions, as long as the other jurisdiction permits non-lawyer ownership.

This development in Georgia is part of a broader shift in the U.S. legal industry. The traditional rule, Attorney Rule of Professional Conduct 5.4, places several restrictions on lawyers working with non-lawyers. These include preventing lawyers from sharing fees with non-lawyers and forming partnerships with non-lawyers involving the practice of law. However, these restrictions have been challenged by law firms, who argue that they prevent them from fully representing clients and limit opportunities to provide comprehensive services.

As a result, some states have taken steps towards allowing non-lawyer-owned firms. For example, a 2021 amendment to California's version of Rule 5.4 permits greater fee-sharing with non-attorney-owned organisations that qualify as nonprofits under IRS rules. Similarly, a Massachusetts firm may share fees with a "qualified legal assistance organisation" as long as the fee-sharing is disclosed to and approved by the client. These changes reflect a growing recognition that non-lawyer ownership of firms may not be as harmful as once believed and could, in fact, serve the public well by increasing access to legal services and reducing costs.

Rule 5.4 places restrictions on lawyers working with non-lawyers

In Georgia, attorneys may work with and share fees with law firms and legal organizations in other jurisdictions, even if those entities have non-attorney ownership. This is permitted under the rules of the other jurisdiction.

Rule 5.4, entitled "Professional Independence of a Lawyer," places several restrictions on lawyers working with non-lawyers. These restrictions include:

• Lawyers or law firms cannot share fees with non-lawyers, except under certain narrow circumstances, such as when a lawyer shares court-awarded legal fees with a nonprofit organization that employed or recommended them.
• Lawyers cannot form a partnership with a non-lawyer if any of the activities involve the practice of law.
• Lawyers cannot practice 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.
• Lawyers must act in the fiduciary interest of their clients and place client interests above their own.

The reasoning behind Rule 5.4 is to protect the lawyer's professional independence of judgment and prevent non-lawyer owners from prioritizing profits over ethical duties and providing good legal services. However, some argue that the rule serves as an artificial barrier, restricting competition and harming clients looking for new services. As a result, states like Arizona have eliminated Rule 5.4, recognizing the potential benefits of allowing lawyers to work with non-lawyers to provide legal services.

The trend in the U.S. is moving towards allowing non-lawyer ownership

In the past, Rule 5.4, entitled "Professional Independence of a Lawyer," effectively barred non-lawyers from holding any ownership interest in law firms. The rule was adopted to prevent non-lawyer owners from prioritizing profits over ethical duties and providing good legal services. It also aimed to protect attorney-client confidentiality.

However, there has been a growing recognition that non-lawyer ownership of firms may not be as harmful as once believed. Non-attorney-owned legal practices have worked well in other countries, and breaking down this blanket prohibition may serve the public well. As a result, several states have started to relax their Rule 5.4 requirements.

For example, in 2020, the Utah Bar created a pilot project that allowed non-lawyer-owned entities to apply for a license to offer legal services. As of March 2022, 31 organizations have been approved to provide a wide range of legal services, and the pilot project has been extended from two years to seven years. Arizona has also eliminated its Rule 5.4, creating a new licensing requirement for Alternate Business Structures ("ABS") that are partially owned by non-lawyers but still provide legal services.

Other 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 organizations that qualify as nonprofits under IRS rules. Similarly, Georgia firms may work and share fees with non-lawyer-owned firms and legal organizations based in other jurisdictions that allow them.

While the trend is moving towards allowing non-lawyer ownership, it is important to note that most jurisdictions in the United States have not yet followed the example of states like Utah and Arizona. Some jurisdictions remain explicitly opposed to the idea, such as Florida, which unanimously opposed proposed amendments to its Rule 5.4 that would have permitted minority ownership by non-lawyer firm employees.

Frequently asked questions