By Gary S. Lesser
Managing Partner, Lesser, Lesser, Landy & Smith, PLLC
The recent decision to authorize KPMG to open and operate a law firm in Arizona has created shockwaves of concern in the legal profession, and we should rightfully be concerned. Arizona’s decision in 2020 to eliminate the prohibition against non-lawyers having an economic interest in law firms was nothing short of seismic. By scrapping this rule, Arizona became the first state in the nation to allow businesses like accounting firms to co-own law firms — provided they have court approval. But we must recognize that opening the door to non-lawyer ownership of law firms introduces serious risks that we cannot ignore.
First and foremost, lawyers have ethical obligations that are fundamental to the attorney-client relationship. We are duty-bound to uphold confidentiality, avoid conflicts of interest, and zealously advocate for our clients. When law firms are co-owned or influenced by non-lawyers — whether they be corporations, investors, or accounting firms — those duties are at risk of being compromised as non-lawyer owners are not subject to the ethics rules that lawyers have taken an oath to follow
One of the key arguments for non-lawyer ownership of law firms was the lack of access to the legal system by many people who felt they could not afford to do so. Studies show that 80% of low-income individuals don’t know if they can afford a lawyer, and up to 60% of middle-class respondents don’t have their legal needs met, depending on the issue.
Advocates of non-lawyer ownership of law firms have argued (without any real supporting data) that competition caused by non-lawyer owned law firms would lower the costs of legal services for regular people.
This has not happened in Arizona so far, and the focus of these non-law owned firms – as one would expect – has been to follow the money. They have focused on plaintiff’s employment law, personal injury law and the like. Grandma is not getting her more affordable will and families are not seeing more affordable legal services based on these changes. The new initiative by KPMG is also aimed at profit not people, and that’s just the tip of the iceberg of this approach.
The legal profession — like every profession — is evolving. Technology has changed how we communicate, manage files, and how clients find lawyers. But these recent developments go far beyond innovation. They strike at the very heart of what it means to be a lawyer — and what it means to protect the public.
Accounting firms are governed by entirely different ethical standards and are driven by a very different model. There is no fiduciary duty to a client in the same sense that lawyers are bound by. KPMG has stated its new law firm will “provide technology-powered legal services including legal operations consulting, volume contracting and other managed services.” What happens when the bottom line begins to influence legal strategy?
Supporters of Arizona’s model argue that these reforms reduce costs, promote innovation, and expand access to legal services. There is almost no data to support these claims almost five years later. And even if this argument had validity, the question becomes “at what cost?”
Legal advice is not a product you can simply streamline or mass-produce without consequences. It’s deeply personal and rooted in professional judgment, integrity, and independence.
We’ve already seen these concerns play out elsewhere. Utah experimented with a more limited version of Arizona’s reforms, but other states — like California — have backed away, citing the potential for ethical abuse and erosion of client protections.
If the goal is to increase greater access to the legal system, then I’d like to point to the work done by The Florida Bar’s Special Committee on Greater Access to Legal Services, which submitted its final report to the Florida Supreme Court. Notably, the key recommendations focused on realistic, pragmatic solutions that could greatly increase access to legal services in three areas: pro se, legal aid and pro bono, and making legal services more affordable and accessible.
Recommendations for pro se litigants focused on standardized electronic pro se litigation forms, which will eliminate much confusion for pro se litigants, and make things easier for clerks of courts — who have historically borne the brunt of repeated filings and dismissals. The committee made further recommendations concerning civil legal aid organizations, whose work focuses on meeting the legal challenges of people facing wrongful evictions, victims of elder abuse, veterans and other vulnerable populations. The Special Committee recommended the increased use of certified legal interns. Imagine if every legal aid organization suddenly had two or three CLIs to assist their overworked staff. The impact would be substantial.
Another key recommendation of the committee was to promote and expand prepaid legal service plans, which have been permitted in Florida since 1970 with the specific purpose of providing for more affordable legal services. But this approach has not seen widespread use. Typically, these plans start at only $12 per month for an individual basis plan, and $75 per month for a business plan, and they provide a number of legal services for free — such as a free consultation, phone conference or initial letters on a matter. Some plans also include a free will, with supplemental services being offered at a much lower affordable hourly rate.
This is a tremendous economic opportunity, as the best-known data estimates that only 2.5% of the people who may be eligible to have a prepaid plan actually do have one. This is partially due to the fact that many Florida lawyers have not taken the opportunity to expand their practices to become providers. The lack of plan providers plays a role in the general public being unaware of the availability of the plans. There is a huge potential market that is not being served. There is massive opportunity for expansion of law firm providers here, which will greatly benefit people who sign up for this low-cost legal services system.
These recommendations for greater access to legal services are lawyer driven and are designed to serve the public. Non-lawyer legal service providers have included software companies and settlement finance companies — but commercial entities may be more focused on where they can make a profit than on benefits to the public or the legal system.
The independent legal profession and the independent judiciary ensure ethical and legal protections for clients and the public. These protections are of paramount importance to the judicial branch and to legal practitioners and are not for sale. While there may be no “Hail Mary” action that can immediately solve the challenge of greater public access to the legal system, a combination of realistic, pragmatic strategies can move the ball forward 10 yards for a first down. And that’s what we have to keep doing.
As Arizona and KPMG move forward with this experiment, the rest of the country should watch carefully — and tread very cautiously. The promise of innovation must never come at the expense of ethics, professionalism, and protecting the public.
There’s a reason almost every state, including Florida, have consistently reaffirmed that only lawyers should practice law, own law firms, and share in legal fees. These principles are not arbitrary — they are there to protect the public. Once you introduce outside non-lawyer ownership, it’s no longer just about the client. It’s about revenue streams, quarterly earnings, and corporate interests. Lawyers are oath bound and regulated to make sure that our ethics rules are paramount and client interests are protected above all else.
