It's illegal in most states for private equity to buy a law firm. Lawyers have figured out a workaround.
It might seem like private equity has climbed the mountain of the American economy, declaring everywhere the light touches as part of its kingdom.
But one corner remains in the shadowlands: Law firms.
Nearly every state has adopted a professional ethics rule from the American Bar Association forbidding lawyers from working for nonlawyer-owned firms.
Lawyers, of course, have figured out a way around it.
The loophole, known as a "managed services organization" — or MSO — allows non-lawyers to effectively own part of law firms through a second corporate entity.
Business Insider spoke to two attorneys who advise law firms on the arrangement, which they said is becoming increasingly common.
In June, Puerto Rico's high court allowed non-lawyer investment in law firms in order to spur economic development in the territory. Arizona, the only state that has done away with the ABA rule, in 2020, now has over 100 law firms that are open to outside investors, according to a recent Stanford Law School study. Large companies like KPMG and Rocket Lawyer now own law firms in the state outright.
The MSO model, which isn't limited to only Arizona, could appeal to law firm owners who want to retire or who don't want to hand their firms over to a law partner.
"We're in the midst of the largest rolling retirement of lawyers in history," said Lucian Pera, a legal ethics attorney at Adams & Reese who advises lawyers and businesses about setting up MSOs. "The baby boomers are getting old and retiring. And that's a real opportunity for some people."
Using an MSO can give private equity firms — or other kinds of companies — a chance to effectively buy a slice of legal practices. And it gives lawyers the chance to sell stakes of their companies for cold, hard cash.
It could also offer the chance to partner with a deep-pocketed company that could boost the firm and help scale it to new heights.
No one says MSOs are not OK
Traditionally, law firms have operated as partnerships among attorneys, where equity partners own shares in the firm and help manage it.
That's partly because of ethics rules designed to maintain attorney independence, such as ABA Model Rule 5.4(d), which largely prevents nonlawyers from owning law firms or from having the right to control the professional judgment of a lawyer.
The ABA's rules have made law practices distinct from many other white-collar professions, like finance or consulting, which may have robust ethical rules and norms but don't impose such stringent limits on ownership. There are plenty of publicly traded banks and consulting firms, but no publicly traded law firms.
As a workaround, the law firms can set themselves up as two corporate entities, Pera said. One is the law firm itself, composed exclusively of lawyers and owned only by lawyers. The second is the service organization, which can be owned by anyone and acts as a vendor for the law firm. It is essentially the back office, taking care of all non-lawyer tasks, including marketing, accounting, human resources, real estate leases, and employing paralegals. The two corporate entities enter into a long-term contract.
Under this MSO arrangement, non-lawyers can invest in the service corporation, though not the law firm itself. Presto! You have an ethically independent group of lawyers who are exclusively working with a company that can sell shares, Pera says.
According to Pera, no state bars have issued ethics opinions that expressly bless the MSO model, but no court or regulator has found a problem with it, either.
"The pieces fit well, and there's no regulatory approval required for a law firm to do it, just like there's no regulatory approval required for a law firm to take out a bank loan," Pera said.
A spokesperson for the American Bar Association said its Center for Professional Responsibility doesn't have any ethics opinions on non-lawyers investing in MSOs.
"Lawyers are not subject to the ABA Model Rules," the spokesperson said. "Instead, they are regulated by the state supreme courts in which they are licensed."
Opportunities for both lawyers and investors
Tom Lenfestey is the founder and CEO of The Law Market Exchange, a sort of Craigslist for law firms.
He says private equity companies are typically interested in consumer-driven firms, like personal injury.
Investors might be able to introduce new efficiencies into those firms and get a steady stream of revenue in a larger portfolio, said Lenfestey, who also advises on law firm mergers and acquisitions.
Private equity companies might be warier of investing in Big Law firms, which typically service corporations and have fewer but bigger clients, he said. Lawyers could always jump ship and take clients with them, but consumer law firms tend to do steadier business, he said.
"Personal injury is brand-marketed — it's the billboards, it's the TV, it's the digital marketing," Lenfestey told Business Insider. "It's not attorney relationship-based."
Because law firms aren't required to disclose their use of service organizations, it's difficult to know how widespread the practice is.
Both Pera and Lenfestey declined to list the firms they've worked with using the structure, citing confidentiality obligations to their clients, but said it's becoming more common.
Pera said he knows of one firm that used the structure as far back as 2006. In more recent years, more law firms and investors have become interested in using MSOs, Pera and Lenfestey said.
"There are many more that are in process right now, and some of them are quite large," Pera said. "There's a fairly large insurance defense firm in this country that's looking at doing this. There's a fairly large AmLaw-ranked law firm that's looking at this. So there's a non-trivial number of these that are going on."
Lawyers who have built up their practices, and who want to cash out, can do so by effectively selling part of their firm to someone else to manage.
They can also help firms scale. Selling shares of an MSO could help finance lead generation or advertising.
Catalex Network, which launched earlier this year, is using the MSO model to invest in law firms with a longer time horizon. While a private equity firm might want to stick with a law firm for a few years before selling its stake, Catalex Network says it aims to form long-term partnerships with law firms by helping them establish MSOs, buying substantial stakes in them, combining their back-offices, and giving the firms the resources to compete with Big Law.
Catalex Network offers bread-and-butter services like IT, payroll, compliance management, and accounting. But also services that are more specific to the legal industry, like recruiting and sophisticated enterprise software that would be cost-prohibitive for smaller firms.
"I've seen kind of what big law resources are and I've seen what small law resources are," said Jeffrey Goldenhersh, a Catalex Network founding partner, who previously worked at the Big Law firm Skadden Arps before moving to a boutique firm.
For Catalex Network, the MSO structure offers a way for the company to grow with law firms. The American Bar Association's rules meant to preserve attorney independence, such as limits on fee-sharing with non-lawyers, are a non-issue.
And while Catalex Network handles the back office, the lawyers can do less managing and more lawyering, Goldenhersh says.
"There's a real consolidation going on at the top end of the legal market and some of these smaller, midsize, boutique-type firms are getting a little bit left behind," Jesse Hamilton, another Catalex founding partner, told BI. "So we're trying to help them catch up and be able to step into the ring with some of the larger firms that have consolidated, have the best technology, the best AI, the best back office staff, and have them be able to compete and stay relevant in the industry."

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles

Los Angeles Times
2 hours ago
- Los Angeles Times
It's Trump's economy now. The latest financial numbers offer some warning signs
WASHINGTON — For all of President Trump's promises of an economic 'golden age,' a spate of weak indicators last week told a potentially worrisome story as the effects of his policies are coming into focus. Job gains are dwindling. Inflation is ticking upward. Growth has slowed compared with last year. More than six months into his term, Trump's blitz of tariff hikes and his new tax-and-spending bill have remodeled America's trading, manufacturing, energy and tax systems to his liking. He's eager to take credit for any perceived wins and is hunting for someone else to blame if the financial situation starts to totter. But as of now, this is not the boom the Republican president promised, and his ability to blame his Democratic predecessor, Joe Biden, for any economic challenges has faded as the world economy hangs on his every word and social media post. When Friday's monthly jobs report turned out to be decidedly bleak, Trump ignored the warnings in the data and fired the head of the agency that produces the report. 'Important numbers like this must be fair and accurate, they can't be manipulated for political purposes,' Trump said on his social media platform, without offering evidence for his claim. 'The Economy is BOOMING.' It's possible that the disappointing numbers are growing pains from the rapid transformation caused by Trump and that stronger growth will return — or they may be a preview of even more disruption to come. Trump's aggressive use of tariffs, executive actions, spending cuts and tax code changes carry significant political risk if he is unable to deliver middle-class prosperity. The effects of his new tariffs are still several months away from rippling through the economy, right as many Trump allies in Congress will be campaigning in the midterm elections. 'Considering how early we are in his term, Trump's had an unusually big impact on the economy already,' said Alex Conant, a Republican strategist at Firehouse Strategies. 'The full inflationary impact of the tariffs won't be felt until 2026. Unfortunately for Republicans, that's also an election year.' The White House portrayed the blitz of trade frameworks leading up to Trump's tariff announcement Thursday as proof of his negotiating prowess. The European Union, Japan, South Korea, the Philippines, Indonesia and other nations that the White House declined to name agreed that the U.S. could increase its tariffs on their goods without doing the same to American products. Trump simply set rates on other countries that lacked settlements. The costs of those tariffs — taxes paid on imports to the U.S. — will be most felt by American consumers in the form of higher prices, but to what extent remains uncertain. 'For the White House and their allies, a key part of managing the expectations and politics of the Trump economy is maintaining vigilance when it comes to public perceptions,' said Kevin Madden, a Republican strategist. Just 38% of adults approve of Trump's handling of the economy, according to a July poll by the Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs. That's down from the end of Trump's first term when half of adults approved of his economic leadership. The White House paints a rosier image, casting the economy as emerging from a period of uncertainty after Trump's restructuring and repeating the economic gains seen in his first term before the pandemic struck. 'President Trump is implementing the very same policy mix of deregulation, fairer trade, and pro-growth tax cuts at an even bigger scale — as these policies take effect, the best is yet to come,' White House spokesman Kush Desai said. The economic numbers over the last week show the difficulties that Trump might face if the numbers continue on their current path: — Friday's jobs report showed that U.S. employers have shed 37,000 manufacturing jobs since Trump's tariff launch in April, undermining prior White House claims of a factory revival. — Net hiring has plummeted over the last three months with job gains of just 73,000 in July, 14,000 in June and 19,000 in May — a combined 258,000 jobs lower than previously indicated. On average last year, the economy added 168,000 jobs a month. — A Thursday inflation report showed that prices have risen 2.6% over the year that ended in June, an increase in the personal consumption expenditures price index from 2.2% in April. Prices of heavily imported items, such as appliances, furniture and toys and games, jumped from May to June. — On Wednesday, a report on gross domestic product — the broadest measure of the U.S. economy — showed that it grew at an annual rate of less than 1.3% during the first half of the year, down sharply from 2.8% growth last year. 'The economy's just kind of slogging forward,' said Guy Berger, senior fellow at the Burning Glass Institute, which studies employment trends. 'Yes, the unemployment rate's not going up, but we're adding very few jobs. The economy's been growing very slowly. It just looks like a 'meh' economy is continuing.' Trump has sought to pin the blame for any economic troubles on Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell, saying the Fed should cut its benchmark interest rates — even though doing so could generate more inflation. Trump has publicly backed two Fed governors, Christopher Waller and Michelle Bowman, for voting for rate cuts at Wednesday's meeting. But their logic is not what the president wants to hear: They were worried, in part, about a slowing job market. But this is a major economic gamble being undertaken by Trump and those pushing for lower rates under the belief that mortgages will also become more affordable as a result and boost homebuying activity. His tariff policy has changed repeatedly over the last six months, with the latest import tax numbers serving as a substitute for what the president announced in April, which provoked a stock market sell-off. It might not be a simple one-time adjustment as some Fed board members and Trump administration officials argue. Of course, Trump can't say no one warned him about the possible consequences of his economic policies. Biden, then the outgoing president, did just that in a speech in December at the Brookings Institution, saying the cost of the tariffs would eventually hit American workers and businesses. 'He seems determined to impose steep, universal tariffs on all imported goods brought into this country on the mistaken belief that foreign countries will bear the cost of those tariffs rather than the American consumer,' Biden said. 'I believe this approach is a major mistake.' Boak and Rugber write for the Associated Press.
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Best Stock to Buy Right Now: Target vs. Costco
Key Points Costco has 80 million paid household members. Target recently raised its dividend for the 54th consecutive year. Target favors share repurchases, while Costco prioritizes maintaining a strong balance sheet. 10 stocks we like better than Costco Wholesale › Costco Wholesale (NASDAQ: COST) and Target (NYSE: TGT) are two of the most recognizable names in American retail. While both have been longtime winners for shareholders, their stocks have lost steam in recent months. However, when established leaders hit a rough patch, it can create a timely opportunity to invest at a more reasonable price. Let's take a closer look at the valuation, shareholder returns, and recent financial performance to see which of these retail giants looks like the better buy today. Does Costco or Target have a better valuation? Valuation is critical in determining whether a stock is priced attractively relative to its earnings potential. It helps investors gauge whether they're paying a fair price, a premium, or a potential bargain. Target and Costco are blue chip retailers, but the market values them differently. Costco, up just 2% in 2025, carries a market capitalization of more than $413 billion -- nearly 3 times the $47 billion of Target, which has seen its stock fall 23% year to date. That gap reflects investor confidence in Costco's steady growth and recurring membership revenue, while Target continues to work through declining sales. Costco trades at a trailing price-to-earnings (P/E) ratio of 52.8 -- well above its three-year median of 46.5 -- suggesting the stock may be richly valued. In contrast, Target trades at just 14.6 times trailing earnings, below its three-year median of 17, pointing to a potential discount. While valuation alone doesn't tell the whole story, it's a meaningful starting point, and in this case, Target has the edge over Costco for investors looking for a discount. Returning capital to shareholders Costco recently increased its quarterly dividend from $1.16 to $1.30 per share, its 21st consecutive annual raise -- bringing its yield to a modest 0.56%. While the yield may seem low, Costco has a track record of rewarding shareholders with sizable special dividends during periods of strong cash flow. In fact, it has issued five special dividends over the past 13 years, including a $15-per-share payout in January 2024. With a conservative payout ratio of just 20%, Costco has plenty of room to continue growing its dividend in the years ahead. Target, meanwhile, is a Dividend King -- having raised its dividend for 54 straight years. Its most recent increase bumped the quarterly distribution from $1.12 to $1.14 per share, translating to a 4.4% yield, one of the most generous among major retailers. Notably, its 49% payout ratio leaves room for management to continue its tradition of dividend hikes. When it comes to share repurchases, Target has been the more aggressive player. It bought back $251 million worth of stock last quarter and has reduced its outstanding share count by 9.3% over the past five years. However, with the stock trading near multiyear lows, some may question the effectiveness of those buybacks. Costco, by contrast, takes a more conservative approach, spending $215 million on repurchases last quarter, mainly to offset dilution. Over the past five years, its share count has remained essentially unchanged. For income-focused investors, Target's generous yield and long-standing dividend track record are hard to beat. But its buyback strategy hasn't always delivered the intended value. Costco's disciplined approach, lower payout ratio, and history of special dividends offer a different kind of appeal. Ultimately, both companies prioritize rewarding shareholders, making this category a tie. Recent financial performance and outlook For the final, and arguably most important, category for future stock appreciation, let's examine each company's recent financial performance and near-term outlook. Costco continues to deliver strong, consistent results. In its most recent quarter, the company reported $62 billion in revenue, an 8% increase year over year, driven by its 80 million paid household members. Net income rose 13% to $1.9 billion, and comparable sales (excluding the effects of gas prices and currency fluctuations) climbed 8%. E-commerce was particularly strong, growing 15.7%. While Costco doesn't provide formal financial guidance, CEO Ron Vachris expressed confidence heading into the final quarter of fiscal 2025, saying, "While the impacts of tariffs and the outlook for the economy in general remain unknown, we are confident in the ability of our operators and merchants to rise to the challenges and continue to offer great service and find consistent values for our members." Vachris' confidence is supported by the company's membership renewal rates of 92.7% in the U.S. and Canada and 90.2% globally. Target's latest quarter, by contrast, was more uneven. Revenue declined 2.8% to $23.8 billion, with comparable store sales down 5.7%. However, digital was a bright spot, with online sales up 4.7% thanks to a 36% increase in same-day delivery. Excluding a one-time legal settlement, adjusted earnings per share (EPS) came in at $1.30, down sharply from $2.03 the year prior. CEO Brian Cornell acknowledged the challenges: "I want to be clear that we're not satisfied with this performance, and we're moving with urgency to navigate through this period of volatility." Looking ahead, Target management expects adjusted EPS of $7 to $9 for 2025, compared to $8.86 in 2024 -- signaling continued uncertainty in the months ahead. All told, Costco's consistent top- and bottom-line growth, strong digital momentum, and unmatched member loyalty give it a clear advantage in this category. Which stock is the better buy? Both Target and Costco have their strengths. If its turnaround efforts succeed, Target offers a higher dividend yield, cheaper valuation, and upside potential. On the other hand, Costco continues to deliver impressive growth, fueled by its membership model and global footprint. In a more uncertain economic environment, Costco's consistency and proven membership model make it the better buy for most long-term investors, especially considering that Costco has a stronger balance sheet with $9.1 billion in net cash versus Target's net debt of $12.6 billion. Should you invest $1,000 in Costco Wholesale right now? Before you buy stock in Costco Wholesale, consider this: The Motley Fool Stock Advisor analyst team just identified what they believe are the for investors to buy now… and Costco Wholesale wasn't one of them. The 10 stocks that made the cut could produce monster returns in the coming years. Consider when Netflix made this list on December 17, 2004... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you'd have $625,254!* Or when Nvidia made this list on April 15, 2005... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you'd have $1,090,257!* Now, it's worth noting Stock Advisor's total average return is 1,036% — a market-crushing outperformance compared to 181% for the S&P 500. Don't miss out on the latest top 10 list, available when you join Stock Advisor. See the 10 stocks » *Stock Advisor returns as of July 29, 2025 Collin Brantmeyer has positions in Costco Wholesale. The Motley Fool has positions in and recommends Costco Wholesale and Target. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy. Best Stock to Buy Right Now: Target vs. Costco was originally published by The Motley Fool Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data

Business Insider
3 hours ago
- Business Insider
Married childfree millennials have a $120,000 net worth advantage
A Business Insider analysis of new data from the Census Bureau's Survey of Income and Program Participation finds that millennials who are married, but don't have children under 18 in the household, are sitting on net worths that exceed those of their parental, single, and divorced peers. It's yet another point in favor of what's fast becoming a new version of the American dream: Living in a high-earning household without kids. Many of those high-net-worth millennials are likely DINKs, meaning that they're in dual-income households with no kids. Others may have arrangements like stay-at-home husbands or wives, where the couple is able to comfortably live off one earner. This data is based on the most recent release of SIPP data; we looked at data from December 2023, which was the last month recipients were surveyed for this wave. We separated out Americans who were married, not a reference parent for any household children under 18, and then sorted by those who were ages 27 to 42 — the age bounds of millennials during the survey period. Childfree and married millennials had a few demographic differences from the larger millennial cohort. They were, for instance, more likely to have a bachelor's degree or a post-graduate degree. Married and childfree millennials were also more likely to be white than the wider millennial cohort, and far less likely to be Black. There were also some key economic differences between married and childfree millennials and the larger millennial group; married and childfree millennials had on average slightly more credit card debt, carrying around $2,456 compared to $2,203 for all millennials. But married and childfree millennials were also more likely to have money socked away for retirement — the average value of their retirement accounts was around $71,886, which far exceeds the $48,408 of the average millennial's retirement accounts. Of course, not all married and childfree millennials are sitting on large net worths. The net worths represent an average across the group, meaning a swath of married and childfree millennials have far less in the bank. Some married and childfree Americans don't want to be in that position — as Business Insider has previously reported, one subset of DINKs would like to have children, but can't afford it, struggle with infertility and uncertainty over family planning, or are turned off by the lack of support for parents in the US. It's also entirely possible that some of those surveyed millennials are biding their time and waiting to have children later in life, a rising trend among some in their generation. There's also another barrier for childfree and married millennials, who are already paying on average around $3,447 in rent or mortgage — the US just doesn't have the housing to accommodate a potentially growing family. Even so, the numbers show it's paying for some millennials to get hitched, but not add to their families. And as Gen Zers think about their futures, financial security is top of mind, while growing their families isn't as high a priority — indicating that the ranks of the financially secure and childfree might only grow.