Rethinking Ownership in Law: What Medicine Teaches Us About Non-Lawyer Investment
In this original and timely piece, Professor Melissa Mortazavi of the University of Oklahoma College of Law challenges one of the most widely touted reforms allegedly seeking to bridge the access to justice gap: allowing non-lawyer ownership (NLO) of law firms. Her article, What Lawyers Could Learn from the Corporate Practice of Medicine, offers a cautionary tale that deserves the careful attention of legal professionals, regulators, and anyone invested in justice system reform.
The Promise and Peril of Non-Lawyer Ownership
Advocates of NLO often pitch it as a solution to the persistent “access to justice” crisis. The logic goes something like this: allow outside investors and innovative business models into the legal market, and legal services will become more affordable, more available, and more client-friendly.
But Professor Mortazavi is skeptical—and with good reason. She suggests that this reform, while promising innovation and efficiency, may instead mirror the very problems seen in the corporatization of medicine: professional disenfranchisement, service consolidation, and a disconnect between fiduciary duty and profit motive.
Lessons from the Medical Field
The article draws a compelling comparison to the corporate practice of medicine, where investment capital and profit-driven management have largely overtaken physician-owned practices. The result? Higher costs, decreased autonomy for doctors, and no clear gains in patient outcomes or access to care—particularly for vulnerable populations.
Mortazavi warns that the legal profession could follow a similar trajectory. Without robust self-regulation, NLO could erode lawyers’ professional independence, increase market consolidation, and further marginalize those already excluded from legal remedies.
Who Really Benefits?
A major theme in Mortazavi’s analysis is the misalignment between NLO’s stated goals and its likely outcomes. The primary beneficiaries, she argues, are not underserved clients but rather lawyers seeking capital, business executives eyeing legal markets, and investors eager to extract profits.
International and U.S. experiments with NLO, such as those in the UK, Australia, Utah, and Arizona, have so far shown little to no improvement in access to justice. In fact, improvements tend to benefit middle-class consumers or corporate clients—not the indigent or marginalized communities that access to justice advocates aim to serve.
A Call for Ethical Infrastructure
Rather than rejecting innovation outright, Mortazavi urges the legal profession to be strategic and intentional. She recommends:
- Entity-level regulation: Shift oversight from individual attorneys to law firms as a whole.
- Employment reform: Move away from at-will employment and “eat-what-you-kill” models that undermine ethical practice.
- Proactive self-governance: Don’t rely on statutory law alone. Bar associations must establish and enforce meaningful ethical standards tailored to new business models.
Final Takeaway: Proceed with Caution
At its heart, the article is a plea for nuance. It recognizes the need for legal innovation and capital infusion—but only if done with eyes wide open and safeguards in place. The experience of corporate medicine serves as a stark warning: without strong professional boundaries, the noble goals of access and equity can quickly give way to profit and control.
As state bars, courts, and policymakers consider the future of legal practice, Mortazavi’s work should be required reading. The legal profession has a narrow window to shape reforms in a way that genuinely benefits the public, rather than simply opening the door to another round of market consolidation.
📖 Read the full article here: What Lawyers Could Learn from the Corporate Practice of Medicine (OU Law Digital Commons)