Who Runs the Business of Law?
Rethinking the Structure of the Modern Law Firm
For most of modern legal history, the structure of law firms has been remarkably consistent.
A partnership of lawyers practices law. The same partnership runs the business of the firm.
For a long time, that model made sense. The operational side of running a law firm was relatively straightforward compared to the legal work itself. Firms needed office space, administrative staff, and basic financial management. The business side existed, but it did not demand the same level of attention or specialization.
That is no longer the case.
Running a law firm today involves far more than supporting legal work. Technology systems, cybersecurity, recruiting, marketing, data management, and financial strategy all play a meaningful role in how firms operate and grow. These functions do not replace the practice of law, but they increasingly shape how firms compete, scale, and serve their clients.
As these demands expand, a structural question that the industry has largely avoided for decades is beginning to surface more often:
The Growing Complexity of Running a Firm
Who runs the business of law?
Within every firm, two distinct functions have always existed.
The first is the practice of law. Advising clients, developing legal strategy, advocating in court, negotiating settlements, and exercising professional judgment.
The second is the business of running a firm. Building and maintaining the systems that allow that legal work to happen. Technology platforms, operational processes, recruiting, marketing, financial management, and long-term planning.
Historically, these functions have lived within the same partnership structure. Lawyers have been responsible for both.
That arrangement worked when the business side of a firm was relatively simple.
Today, the distinction is harder to ignore.
Practicing law and operating a complex professional services organization require different types of expertise, different resources, and, in many cases, different forms of leadership.
Over the past decade, the demands of running a firm have expanded significantly.
Technology now sits at the center of legal practice. Firms rely on case management systems, data security infrastructure, e-discovery tools, and increasingly advanced research technologies.
Marketing and client development have evolved as well. Firms invest in digital platforms, brand positioning, and client acquisition strategies that require ongoing attention and specialized knowledge.
At the same time, operational requirements have grown more complex. Human resources, compliance, cybersecurity, and financial management all require a level of focus that was not always necessary in earlier generations of law firms.
None of this changes the substance of legal work.
But it does change the environment in which that work takes place.
For many firms, the business side of the organization has become substantial in its own right.
Rethinking the Structure of the Modern Law Firm
As that reality becomes more difficult to ignore, some firm leaders are beginning to reconsider how these functions are organized.
One question that arises with increasing frequency is whether the traditional partnership structure is the most effective way to manage both the practice of law and the business that supports it.
This has led to growing interest in alternative structures that separate certain operational functions from the legal practice itself.
One example is the Management Services Organization, or MSO model. In this structure, the law firm remains responsible for practicing law and making legal decisions, while a separate organization provides operational services such as technology, marketing, recruiting, and administrative support.
The MSO model is not the only approach.
But its emergence reflects a broader shift in how some leaders are thinking about the relationship between legal work and the systems that support it.
The question is not simply whether one model is better than another.
It is whether the traditional structure of law firms still reflects the realities of running a modern professional services organization.
The partnership model is unlikely to disappear. For many firms, it continues to work well and will likely remain the foundation of the profession.
But the conversation around structure is becoming more active as firms navigate a changing operational landscape.
Technology will continue to evolve. Client expectations will continue to shift. Competition for talent and clients will remain strong.
The systems required to support legal work will likely continue to grow in complexity.
In that environment, the way firms organize the business side of their operations may become an increasingly important strategic consideration.
The legal profession has long focused on the substance of legal practice.
Increasingly, firm leaders are also turning their attention to the architecture of the organizations that support that work.
And that raises a question that feels more relevant now than it has in decades:
Not just who practices law, but who runs the business of law.
Related Reading
We explore one structural model in more detail in a separate article on the Management Services Organization (MSO) model and its emergence in conversations about the future of law firm structure.
Read: The MSO Model: A New Architecture for the Modern Law Firm
