Legal MSO Insider

Why Rule 5.4 Is Central to the MSO Conversation
Any discussion of Legal Management Services Organizations must begin with Rule 5.4, which generally prohibits fee-sharing with nonlawyers and nonlawyer ownership or control of law firms. These rules exist to protect lawyer independence, client confidentiality, and professional judgment.

Legal MSOs do not operate outside this framework. They exist because of it.

​

How Legal MSOs Are Designed to Comply
A properly structured Legal MSO separates the practice of law from the business of running a law firm. The law firm remains owned and controlled by lawyers. It employs the attorneys, represents clients, and retains exclusive authority over legal judgment and client decisions.

The MSO is a separate entity that provides defined, nonlegal services such as operations, technology, finance, HR, marketing, recruiting, and compliance infrastructure. It does not practice law. It does not provide legal advice. It is compensated for services rendered, not for legal outcomes.

This separation is not cosmetic. It is foundational.

​

The “Disguised Equity” Critique
One of the most common critiques of Legal MSOs is that they function as “disguised equity” arrangements. The concern is that, even if an MSO does not technically own a law firm, poorly structured agreements could allow nonlawyers to extract firm value or influence decision-making in ways that resemble ownership.

This concern is legitimate. It is also highly dependent on structure.

Problems arise when compensation is tied directly to firm profits, when governance provisions grant the MSO approval rights over legal decisions, or when economic mechanisms effectively transfer long-term firm value to the MSO. In those cases, the issue is not semantics. The economic substance may begin to resemble equity, regardless of how the documents are labeled.

That is why ethics analysis focuses on substance over form.

​

Why Proper Structuring Matters
A well-designed MSO does not share legal fees, does not participate in legal decision-making, and does not derive compensation from legal outcomes. Authority over clients, cases, and legal strategy remains unequivocally with lawyers.

When those boundaries are respected, the “disguised equity” critique loses force. When they are not, it becomes the central risk of the arrangement.

Compliance is therefore not achieved by naming the structure correctly, but by drafting and operating it correctly.

What Experienced Ethics Counsel Are Saying
Practitioners with direct experience structuring MSO relationships have been clear that Rule 5.4 compliance is achievable when done properly.

​

As Trisha Rich, a legal ethics partner at Holland & Knight, has stated:

​

“We have every reason to believe the MSO/law firm relationships we've structured comply with all ethical requirements, including those proscribed by Rule 5.4. The attorney regulatory rules are technical and it is critically important to get them right, but when MSO and law firm relationships are structured and managed correctly, they work with the ethics rules, and not in contravention of them.”

​

This reflects the prevailing view among attorneys actively working in this space: Rule 5.4 is not an absolute prohibition on MSOs, but it is an exacting standard.

​

The 40-Year Medical MSO Precedent
The Legal MSO model did not emerge in a vacuum. Management Services Organizations have operated in the medical profession for more than four decades under similar prohibitions on non-physician ownership.

In medicine, MSOs were developed precisely to address the same issues now facing law firms: professionals trained to practice, not to run complex businesses; rising operational demands; and increasing need for capital, technology, and professional management.

Over time, the medical MSO model became a mature, regulated, billion-dollar industry. Its longevity demonstrates that separating professional practice from business operations can work ethically and effectively when structured correctly.

The legal profession is now navigating a similar transition.

​

Why This Matters for Law Firms
An MSO is not a workaround. It is a structural relationship that must be designed with care. When properly structured, MSOs can coexist with Rule 5.4 and preserve lawyer independence. When poorly structured, they can create ethical and economic risks that are difficult to unwind.

For law firms evaluating MSOs, Rule 5.4 should not be treated as an obstacle to overcome late in the process. It should shape the structure from the beginning.

​