Latest news with #lawfirms
Forbes
3 days ago
- Business
- Forbes
4 Ways To Contribute To Your Blog When You're Tired Of Writing
Peter Boyd is an attorney and the Founder of PaperStreet. He has successfully helped 2,000 law firms with their websites and marketing. For small-business owners, writing blog posts each month can start to feel like a chore, especially if writing isn't your thing. On the days when you're staring at the screen and nothing good is coming to mind, it's okay to take a break. You don't have to write. But you should keep contributing to your content marketing in some way. I've put together a few ideas to help you still put in the effort while honoring the fact that your brain just isn't in a writing mood. (Hey, it happens to all of us. We can't be creative geniuses 100% of the time.) 1. Refresh An Old Blog Post Look through your site and find a blog post that's gotten a lot of views. Then update it. Add 'Updated 2025' to the post title and title tag. Refresh the content—make sure it's accurate, relevant and optimized. Maybe add a few new lines, replace any outdated links or swap in a new image. It's less work than writing from scratch and can still boost your SEO. 2. Make Some Artwork If writing feels like pulling teeth today, switch gears and make something visual. Many online graphic design tools are super user-friendly—even if you don't think of yourself as a designer. Create a few graphics for old blog posts, or ones you know you'll be publishing soon. Or knock out images for your next holiday campaign. Another successful effort is to take a blog post and generate an infographic from it. These might not be the most urgent tasks, but they are still productive and a great creative outlet. 3. Curate Instead Of Create Not everything has to be completely original content. Share a roundup of recent news, industry trends or helpful tools. Then write a quick introduction or add a short note about why you're sharing. If even that feels like too much writing, just let the links speak for themselves. You're still providing value, and your readers will appreciate it. Bonus: This strategy can help support your link-building efforts. When sharing your curated blog post on social media, be sure to tag the owner of the links you included. You could get some extra mentions from it, making this effort just as valuable as writing something new. 4. Generate Future Writing Ideas Spend time planning instead of producing. Scroll through your analytics. Poke around competitor websites. Check out what's trending on LinkedIn or even your Facebook feed. Gather inspiration from your favorite places. Jot down headline ideas. My team loves using AI to brainstorm blog topics when we're in a slump. Just Keep Showing Up Some days, writing just isn't going to happen. But that doesn't mean your content marketing has to stall. Whether you're refreshing, designing, curating or planning ahead, there are plenty of ways to stay productive (and creative) without forcing a single sentence. Honor what mood you're in, and do your best to stay on track. The most important thing isn't writing something, but rather committing to your overall strategy. No one minds if you pivot a bit. Forbes Agency Council is an invitation-only community for executives in successful public relations, media strategy, creative and advertising agencies. Do I qualify?
Reuters
7 days ago
- Business
- Reuters
New law firms bank on 'boutique' edge
July 17 (Reuters) - (Billable Hours is Reuters' weekly report on lawyers and money. Please send tips or suggestions to opens new tab.) As the biggest U.S. law firms keep up their battle for talent and market share and navigate new pressures in the Trump era, smaller, so-called boutique firms have been showing fresh signs of momentum. At least two new boutiques announced their launch this week, founded by former partners from Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison, and A&O Shearman. Others formed in recent years are at the center of high-stakes, high-profile cases. And some lawyers exiting government service are creating their own new firms. One of the new entrants, Dunn Isaacson Rhee, officially debuted Wednesday with 26 lawyers, mainly from 1,000-lawyer, New York-based Paul Weiss. Co-founder Karen Dunn, an influential Democrat and litigator in Washington, made headlines in May when she left Paul Weiss, which has been in the spotlight since striking a deal with President Donald Trump in March to avoid an executive order targeting the firm over its past hires and its diversity policies. Eight other major firms followed Paul Weiss' lead, pledging nearly $1 billion in free legal work to causes Trump supports. Dunn Isaacson Rhee, whose founders did not cite Paul Weiss' dealings with Trump when leaving the firm, declined interview requests. The firm in Wednesday's announcement said its clients already include Amazon, Warner Bros. Discovery, Qualcomm, Google, Ultimate Fighting Championship and Meta. Also on Wednesday, former A&O Shearman partners David Esseks and Eugene Ingoglia announced the launch of Esseks Ingoglia, a New York-based litigation firm focused on investigations and white-collar defense work. Ingoglia in an email said both founders had worked at small firms and shared "an affinity for fighting for clients as part of a small tight-knit band of (merry) warriors." Legal industry observers and small firm founders said boutiques are thriving thanks to the attributes that set them apart from their large counterparts: fewer potential conflicts of interest between clients, greater freedom in case selection, and more flexible billing models -- departing from the billable hour model still dominant at big firms. Improvements in technology have also made it easier for fewer lawyers to handle more work, said Arlo Devlin-Brown, who left 1,500-lawyer Covington & Burling to start a new firm last month with a partner who departed Sidley Austin. "There's a lot of things a small firm can do now that would have been impossible even five years ago," said Devlin-Brown, an ex-prosecutor whose new firm, Treanor Devlin Brown, focuses on white-collar and cryptocurrency-related matters. Beth Wilkinson, who left Paul Weiss nearly a decade ago to co-found Wilkinson Stekloff, now with 45 lawyers, said corporate legal departments are increasingly comfortable turning to boutiques. Her firm eschews billable hours entirely, negotiating fees upfront to avoid billing disputes. Its clientele includes Pfizer, Microsoft, the National Football League, Exxon, 3M and the National Collegiate Athletic Association. Billing flexibility combined with a winning record have also fueled the success of Bartlit Beck, a Chicago litigation boutique spun off from Kirkland & Ellis over 30 years ago, managing partner Jason Peltz said. Still, large firms remain dominant in big-ticket litigation. Many corporations prefer to rely on a small roster of full-service firms with deep benches, said Kristin Stark of consultancy Fairfax Associates. Many of the largest U.S. law firms continue to post record profits and revenues year after year, and have continued to grow larger. Stark said there may be a current surge in spin-offs from big firms, but added, "I do not believe that large corporate law departments are increasing their openness to using boutiques." Leaving a large firm can make it easier to take on politically sensitive matters. Prominent litigators Paul Clement and Erin Murphy left Kirkland & Ellis in 2022, shortly after Kirkland said it would no longer represent clients in pro-Second Amendment rights matters. Since then, their firm Clement & Murphy has taken on a range of consequential cases for major clients including Chevron. Despite Clement's conservative bona fides, it has signed on to cases opposing actions by the Republican Trump administration. Its founders did not immediately respond to requests for comment. Ellen Zucker, a Boston lawyer who founded her own firm after her old one Burns & Levinson closed last year, said it was "liberating" not to need to struggle for buy-in from management to commit to a case or cause. When Zucker decided to sign a brief supporting other law firms suing the Trump administration over his law firm executive orders, "I had one conversation with my partners, and we signed on," Zucker said. Beyond the spinoff trend, some former government lawyers have formed their own private firms since Trump took office and set out to shrink the federal bureaucracy. Three attorneys who left the U.S. Federal Trade Commission this year joined with a former U.S. attorney last month to launch a new plaintiffs law firm, Simonsen Sussman, focused on antitrust work. "We saw a real market opportunity," said co-founder Kate Brubacher, who served as Kansas' U.S. Attorney during the Biden administration. "Even at large firms, people who want to do this work are hindered by conflicts," she said. In May, two former Justice Department lawyers launched the Civil Service Legal Center, a law firm founded to "fight against the Trump administration's attempts to dismantle the civil service." The firm aims to grow, but "right now it's just the two of us," co-founder Clayton Bailey said. -- When Taylor Wettach launched a campaign to represent Iowans in the U.S. Congress earlier this month, he made his decision to resign from New York-founded Simpson Thacher a centerpiece of his announcement. Wettach, a Democrat running to unseat incumbent Republican Rep. Mariannette Miller-Meeks in the 1st District of Iowa, released a campaign video of himself holding a banker's box in an office elevator, touting what he said was his decision to quit over Simpson Thacher's agreement with Trump to avoid his administration's crackdown on law firms. Wettach, an Iowa native, told Reuters he viewed the targeting of law firms and the deals that some firms made with the White House as an attack on the rule of law. He said his campaign is rooted in the same motivations that made him become a lawyer. "I knew that I wanted to be able to fight for fairness and the dignity of all people and make sure that everybody can get a fair shake," he said. Wettach said he worked on national security and trade issues at Simpson Thacher, as well as pro bono work involving refugees. Simpson Thacher spokespeople did not immediately respond to requests for comment. A spokesperson for Miller-Meeks referred Reuters to the National Republican Congressional Committee. "East Coast Elitist Taylor Wettach just gave up his posh city life to join the clown car Democrat primary in Iowa's First Congressional District," NRCC spokesperson Emily Tuttle said in a statement. -- Burford Capital has completed a $500 million debt offering that its CEO Christopher Bogart said is the largest-ever for the litigation funder. "The fact that we are continuing to grow our capital reserves just speaks to our commitment to the market, and that we are very much open for business around the world," Bogart told Reuters. The 42 active U.S. commercial litigation funders had a total $16.1 billion assets under management last year, according to an annual report from litigation finance advisory firm Westfleet Advisors that was released in March. Read more: Clock ticks for Jackson Walker, US Trustee in ethics case involving ex-judge Litigation funders get a boost in budget bill drama, court wins How much does Hunter Biden's lawyer charge?
Yahoo
12-07-2025
- Entertainment
- Yahoo
Paris Jackson 'concerned' about Michael Jackson estate payments
Michael Jackson's daughter Paris Jackson is "concerned" about payments being made by her father's estate. The 27-year-old singer has objected to a request for court approval of the estate executors' "premium payments" to three law firms in her position as a beneficiary of the Thriller hitmaker's estate. In documents filed on 24 June and obtained by People magazine, Paris is expressed her concern over an alleged "practice of granting so-called 'premium payments' for unrecorded attorney time, much less paying one-hundred percent of any such extraordinary amounts." The paperwork named a six-month period in 2018 when executors requested approval for $625,000 in payments for "uncaptured time" without explaining "as to why counsel was incapable of recording unbilled time, or why such a failure should not preclude payment." Two of the firms had received their prospective payments, in breach of the "Court's order allowing only partial payment of attorneys' fees until Court approval is obtained." The documents added: "Even worse, these payments appear, at least in part, to consist of lavish gratuities bestowed upon already well-compensated counsel. "[The payments] raise serious and substantial questions about Executors' ability to effectively supervise counsel, by, at minimum, requiring that counsel record their time in a manner susceptible to at least superficial review and oversight, namely by means of task-billed time entries, and refraining from wasteful, six-figure gift-giving to themselves and their colleagues." Paris is also said to be "concerned" about the executors' alleged "gross lack of diligence in seeking the required Court approval for extraordinary fees and costs" for the 2018 payments and lack of explanation about the delays. Paris' attorney, Craig Peters, claimed there was "no written agreement" authorising executors to seek approval for fees in six-month increments and requested a "schedule for all of the outstanding approvals, both the accountings and the legal fees." Lawyers for the estate insisted nothing untoward had happened. Jonathan Steinsapir told People: "The Executors' approval of payments to attorneys have been made with the same business judgment that has earned this Estate over $3 billion. "We are confident that the objected-to payments are appropriate as, indeed, they are fully consistent with payments made in the decade prior, all of which have been approved by the Probate Court." Insiders explained the "premium payments" are connected to the sale of Michael's stake in EMI to Sony. A source said: "They are objecting to relatively minor bonuses to three firms for work on the EMI catalogue sale in 2018. "The estate, assisted by these lawyers and others, bought a 10% stake in EMI for $50,000 in 2012 due to a contractual right we had with Sony. "In 2018, the stake sold for almost $300 million! Any business in this position would reward those who worked on that matter through the years. "They also claim that the estate had to withhold 30 percent of all fees pending court approval. On that, they are simply mistaken and do not understand the court's orders. The estate has paid bonuses like this to attorneys for years and they've all been approved without any objections." At the time of his death in 2009, Michael - whose sons Prince and Bigi are also beneficiaries of his estate - was over $500 million in debt to more than 65 creditors. A hearing regarding the matter is scheduled for July 16.
Yahoo
10-07-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
The Law Firms' Deals With Trump Are Looking Worse and Worse
The Trump administration is on an unbroken losing streak in the courts — 0 for 4 — in its effort to defend President Donald Trump's executive orders targeting large law firms. And things could get worse — for Trump, and for the law firms that capitulated to him. It has been several months since the first major law firm brokered a deal with Trump to get out from under an executive order penalizing the firm for conducting work or hiring lawyers that the White House disfavors. Eight firms followed that precedent in order to avoid becoming targeted themselves, ultimately committing a combined total of nearly $1 billion in pro bono legal services to largely unspecified initiatives supported by the Trump administration. Four firms refused to buckle and successfully challenged the orders targeting them in federal district court in Washington, D.C. Trump's executive orders and the deals struck by the settling firms have not aged well. The firms that threw in the towel appear to have misjudged the fallout — financial, reputational, political and legal. Meanwhile, the Trump administration has gotten hammered by the judges presiding over the cases challenging the White House, and it's far from clear the government's appeal will get a better reception in the higher courts, including the Supreme Court, if it gets there. Furthermore, the deals with the settling firms have so far produced scant results for the Trump administration in concrete terms. Trump may see the episode as a political win, at least in the short term. He has publicly boasted about the deals for months and repeatedly said that he will put the settling firms to work for the administration. But there is no publicly available evidence that this has actually happened. Privately, representatives for three of the settling firms (who were granted anonymity to discuss sensitive internal matters) told me that they have not received any instructions or input from the White House on pro bono matters to take on. The Justice Department declined to comment in response to a question about whether the department reached out to any of the settling firms to do pro bono work on behalf of the government. The White House also declined to comment. That does not mean the firms who made deals with Trump are in the clear. The Trump administration could always change course. On top of that, if Democrats retake the House or Senate next year, the firms could find themselves in the crosshairs of lawmakers who have already posed sharp questions directly to the firms about the legality of their deals and the circumstances that led to them. A few subpoenas could divulge even more sensitive and embarrassing details for the firms. It's hard to predict exactly how this surprising subplot in Trump's second term ultimately ends, except that it is only likely to get messier, particularly if — or perhaps when — Trump decides to put the firms to work. When the White House struck its first deal, Brad Karp — the chairman of Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison — defended it by claiming that the firm had no choice because the order posed an 'existential' threat to the firm and 'could easily have destroyed' it. This did not make much sense at the time given the fact that Paul, Weiss is one of the most profitable law firms in the world, but the defense now appears to have been rendered practically nonsensical by the fact that the four firms that challenged the Trump administration have not remotely gone out of business. As a lawyer at one of those firms, who was granted anonymity because he wasn't authorized to speak to the press, put it to me recently, 'I'm pleased to confirm that [our firm] continues to exist — and flourish!' The backlash to the deals in the legal profession has also been real. Some in-house client lawyers who are unhappy with the deals have reportedly been moving work away from the settling firms to the firms that went to court. Some students at the nation's top law schools are steering clear of the settling firms, an embarrassment for firms that like to claim that they have the highest professional standards and best lawyers in the business. Senior lawyers have also felt compelled to leave several of the settling firms. At Paul, Weiss, at least 10 litigation partners have departed, including Karen Dunn, a prominent Democratic lawyer who oversaw Kamala Harris' debate prep last year. Dunn had been in the running to succeed Karp as chair of the firm — a job likely worth tens of millions of dollars a year — and she reportedly supported the deal with the Trump White House and helped whip up support among other attorneys. Her decision to leave despite all that is further evidence that the decision to cut a deal had become professionally and politically toxic in a way that many did not anticipate — particularly for a firm that has long held itself out as an institution committed to liberal values. (As a former attorney at Paul, Weiss, I can attest that this commitment is very dubious indeed.) If you want to be a White House counsel or a lawyer with a major position in a future Democratic administration, having Paul, Weiss on your resume may now be a liability for the foreseeable future. Case in point: Neera Tanden, one of the Democratic Party's most prominent officials, said in a social media post in May that 'Paul Weiss' actions will live in infamy.' The settling firms have even appeared to incur blowback from the judiciary. When Beryl Howell, the judge presiding over the challenge from the law firm Perkins Coie, ruled against the Trump administration, she dropped a footnote dripping with contempt that quickly made the rounds among legal observers. 'If the founding history of this country is any guide,' Howell wrote, 'those who stood up in court to vindicate constitutional rights and, by so doing, served to promote the rule of law, will be the models lauded when this period of American history is written.' For his part, Karp — who once positioned himself as a legal power broker within the Democratic Party but is now blamed for creating a template for surrender that other firms followed — risks becoming the Baghdad Bob of Big Law in his efforts to defend the deal. In addition to the over-the-top claim that the firm's deal with the White House was an 'existential' necessity, he recently told a gathering of the firm's lawyers that it 'has never been healthier' and that the first wave of departing lawyers was no big deal because the lawyers constituted a 'siloed unit' at Paul, Weiss, a highly questionable claim. In any event, prominent lawyers across the litigation department have continued to leave the firm as recently as this week. In fact, Paul, Weiss and the other settling firms may also have long-term legal exposure under federal law and professional rules of conduct, at least in theory. The deal that Paul, Weiss struck appears to implicate a variety of federal and state public corruption statutes, including federal bribery and extortion charges. That is what happens when you agree to give a public official tens of millions of dollars in value in exchange for official actions that benefit you — in this case, an executive order that rescinds a prior executive order and the restoration of federal security clearances, among other accommodations. (The legal situation is plausibly different for the firms that entered into follow-on settlements, who have a stronger claim to having been the victims of an extortion effort.) And while Trump is immune from criminal conduct stemming from official actions, that does not extend to the firms themselves. It's true that a subsequent Democratic administration will probably not investigate or prosecute any of the firms or the lawyers involved. But that assessment primarily reflects political considerations — as well as the recent history of a party populated by lawyers with demonstrably poor judgment in the area of legal accountability — not the law. Setting aside the headlines and Trump's public gloating, it's hard to see what exactly the White House has gotten out of all this so far — at least in tangible terms. The settling firms have insisted that they retain control over their pro bono work, and thus far, there has been no public indication that the White House has directed them even informally to take on any particular engagements. Some of the firms do appear to be making subtle changes to their pro bono portfolios without hearing from the Trump administration. Not surprisingly, firms appear to be pulling back on pro bono immigration work. I also have heard that some conservative legal advocacy groups have fielded calls from lawyers at the settling firms about finding pro bono cases to partner on. At this point, the risk of being put to work by the administration is the most potent near-term threat to the settling firms. That shoe may or may not drop, but if the White House insists that they take on a case on behalf of the administration or its political agenda, the firms will be faced with the choice of caving (again) and incurring further political and reputational harms, or antagonizing the White House to the point that the administration goes back to issuing executive orders and sanctions targeting them. This might be less dramatic than it sounds. If any of the deals were to fall apart in that way, the settling firms would — ironically perhaps — end up benefitting from the firms that refused to give in to the Trump administration. That's because if they ultimately needed to mount their own challenges to the administration, they would likely point directly to the four decisions already rendered against the administration to back them up. Those decisions have been swift and unsparing. The principal evidence against the administration has been its own words — the executive orders and accompanying 'fact sheets' released by the White House to justify them. Those documents have asserted a variety of grievances against the firms, from employing lawyers who criminally investigated Trump to implementing diversity, equity and inclusion programs. As one district judge — a George W. Bush appointee — put it in a case involving WilmerHale, the executive order targeting the firm 'is, on its face, retaliation for the firm's protected speech.' Suboptimal lawyering has been a recurring theme of the second Trump administration. Some experienced lawyers, for instance, believe that Emil Bove — the principal associate deputy attorney general and now a nominee to sit on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit — could have dismissed the criminal case against New York City Mayor Eric Adams without creating a weeks-long public spectacle. You could make the same argument about Trump's legal broadsides against Big Law. Trump and the administration could have put themselves on stronger legal footing — or at least delayed the swift procession of adverse rulings — if they had said much less and opted for vaguer language in their public statements. Instead, they said the quiet parts out loud, and the judges have been throwing that language right back at them. As a result, the government's odds in an appeal before the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals are not particularly good. And if the administration loses there, it is unclear whether the Supreme Court would take the case or side with Trump on the merits. After all, the justices are all lawyers who should presumably be attuned to the serious professional concerns raised by Trump's orders. (For what it's worth, Chief Justice John Roberts' wife happens to be a prominent law firm recruiter.) There is a sense among some of the lawyers at the settling firms that this will all blow over. Trump and his administration got the political scalp they wanted, the thinking goes, but they are not particularly good at executing complex policy initiatives — like completing 90 trade deals in 90 days or finding a buyer for TikTok that will actually comply with the law that Trump decided to ignore after reentering office. Democrats in Congress may confound that expectation if they win back power and opt for a fulsome investigation into the deals, potentially with subpoenas. 'The American people and the Congress deserve complete transparency into Trump's assault on free speech, the right to counsel, due process and access to courts,' said House Judiciary ranking member Jamie Raskin of Maryland, who is already conducting an investigation into the deals along with Democratic Sen. Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut. 'We also should know who stood up and who capitulated to Trump's gangster moves to crush his opposition, co-opt all the lawyers and neutralize the courts. We'll keep demanding answers until the truth is known.' Still, Trump has not gone away empty-handed, even now. For years, some prominent Big Law lawyers have tried to soften the industry's image by positioning themselves as reliable allies of progressive initiatives like DEI policies and as principled litigators willing to oppose their own government. This has in large part been a marketing exercise — large law firms make their money by serving wealthy and powerful private interests and, to take just one example, racial and ethnic diversity among law firm equity partners remains truly abysmal — but Trump managed to blow up that image with the literal stroke of his pen. The deals, in that sense, are just as important for their symbolism as their practical impact. One of Trump's skills in politics is his occasional ability to demonstrate the hollowness of his opponents' stated convictions. He appears to have pulled that off yet again.
Yahoo
06-07-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
It's illegal in most states for private equity to buy a law firm. Lawyers have figured out a workaround.
Legal ethics rules generally don't allow non-lawyers to own law firms. MSOs are a workaround to allow nonlawyers, including private equity firms, to effectively invest. Law firm owners can use the investors to scale, as well as for succession planning. Real estate, airlines, fashion. 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. 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." 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." Read the original article on Business Insider
