- within Compliance topic(s)
The law firm and management services organization (MSO) partnership model is becoming an increasingly attractive structure for private equity and other investors. These patrons seek to participate in the business of law without violating the Rules of Professional Conduct prohibiting improper fee splitting and nonlawyer ownership of law firms. By acquiring and managing the nonlegal assets of a law firm – such as the law firm's brand, technology, real estate (including owned and leased), nonprofessional personnel and other infrastructure – an MSO can generate stable, recurring revenues while supporting the law firm's legal operations under a compliant structure. Because these partnerships work within the Rules of Professional Conduct, and not as an exception to them, they are not prohibited in any U.S. jurisdiction.
Unlike other private equity targets, however, financing the acquisition of nonlegal assets presents unique challenges that differ from traditional leveraged buyouts and debt financing. Ensuring that such investments align with professional responsibility regulations and lender expectations is critical in ensuring a successful transaction.
Structuring the MSO-Law Firm Relationship
The MSO model is defined by the contractual relationship between the law firm and the MSO, typically documented through a long-term management services agreement (MSA). Under this arrangement, the MSO acquires and operates the law firm's business infrastructure, nonprofessional employees, office space, marketing, technology systems and other nonlegal functions, and provides those services to the law firm in exchange for a management fee.
Because the law firm remains owned and controlled exclusively by licensed attorneys, the MSO must ensure that its governance, compensation and contractual arrangements do not interfere with the law firm's independent professional judgment. This distinction becomes particularly important when lenders are underwriting the acquisition.
Key Considerations
1. Understanding the Legal and Structural Boundaries
Experience might tempt a lender to seek a guarantee from the law firm to support acquisition financing of its nonlegal assets. However, such guarantees can raise significant ethical, regulatory and structural concerns in jurisdictions where nonlawyer ownership and fee-sharing are prohibited (such as under Rule 5.4). If the law firm guarantees MSO debt, regulators could view that as indirectly tying the firm's professional income to a nonlawyer enterprise. To maintain clear separation between the legal and business entities and alleviate such concerns, a lender should rely on the MSO's own assets, specifically, its management contracts, the nonlegal assets it acquires and the cash flow generated from its management fee.
2. Financing Structures and Lender Considerations
MSO lenders primarily underwrite the stability of the management relationship and the predictability of MSA revenue. Because the MSO's cash flow depends on service fees from the law firm, lenders will scrutinize, among other things:
- the term, renewal, termination and assignment provisions of the MSA
- the management fee calculation methodology (e.g., fixed fee, cost-plus, etc.) and whether it reflects fair market value
- the law firm's financial health and succession planning
- the continuity of key management personnel
To enhance financing options, investors should structure MSAs with a long term and automatic renewals, robust termination protections, and the ability to freely assign or pledge the MSO's interest to its lenders or other third parties (subject to applicable regulations and laws). Additionally, investors should work to align the law firm's interests with the MSO through governance and incentive mechanisms (also subject to applicable regulations and laws). For lenders, this analysis extends beyond traditional financial metrics. The focus is on durability: the endurance of the MSO's contractual relationship, the resilience of its operations and the continuity of both the MSO's and the law firm's leadership.
3. Lender Comfort
Given the novelty and nature of attorneys' professional obligations, lenders often need education on the regulatory framework and MSO revenue model. An MSO must therefore take a proactive role in educating prospective lenders about the unique regulatory and structural considerations that drive its business model and shape the financing documentation. Positioning the MSO not merely as a compliance workaround but as a legitimate, durable business model can help lenders assess the MSO as a creditworthy borrower.
4. Regulatory and Ethical Compliance
Though the traditional Rule 5.4 framework remains dominant, a few jurisdictions have begun allowing alternative business structures (ABS) or limited nonlawyer ownership in law firms. In these jurisdictions, lenders may have greater flexibility in structuring credit arrangements that include both legal and nonlegal assets. However, the vast majority of jurisdictions still prohibit any form of nonlawyer equity or profit participation. And even in reform jurisdictions, strict regulatory oversight applies. It is imperative that counsel for each of the lender and MSO be attuned to the legal ethics and professional responsibility rules of the jurisdictions in which the law firm operates. Legal ethics counsel familiar with MSO structures should review all financing documents to confirm compliance before closing.
Positioning the MSO for Growth
A well-structured MSO platform can serve as a scalable investment model, supporting multiple law firms, expanding into new practice areas or leveraging shared technology and back-office services. Establishing a financing framework that aligns regulatory concerns and lender expectations from the outset can help reduce challenges for future acquisitions and recapitalizations.
Conclusion
As private equity and other investors continue to explore opportunities in the evolving legal services market, the MSO model offers a compliant and commercially viable pathway to participate. Nonetheless, the financing of the assets of any acquisition of nonlegal assets requires deliberate structuring, regulatory awareness and a clear understanding between investors, counsel and lenders. Early attention to these issues can make the difference between a sound platform and one that struggles under regulatory or financing constraints.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
