Illinois Takes Aim at Legal MSOs: What HB 5487 Could Mean for the Future of Law Firm Investments

Takeaways

• • Illinois HB 5487 would significantly limit legal management services organizations’ (MSOs’) ability to influence law firm operations, attorney staffing, and compensation structures.
  • Law firms using MSO structures in Illinois may face new disclosure requirements, operational limitations, and potential statutory damages for noncompliance.
  • Illinois could become a model for similar legal MSO legislation nationwide, making the bill important for law firms, investors, and transactional attorneys beyond the state.

---

For the past few years, the legal industry has been experiencing a trend that investors and transactional attorneys working in the healthcare space know well: the rise of the management services organization, or “MSO.”

Driven by succession challenges, increasing operational complexity, rising marketing costs, and growing investor interest in professional services businesses, legal MSO structures have emerged as a potential solution for law firms seeking capital, operational support, and growth opportunities. While legal ethics rules continue to prohibit non-lawyer ownership of law firms in most jurisdictions, MSO structures have been viewed by many as a way to attract investment while preserving attorney ownership and professional independence; however, that landscape may be changing.

Illinois House Bill 5487, recently passed by the Illinois General Assembly,[1] represents one of the most significant legislative efforts to date aimed at restricting the use of legal MSO structures. Although the bill does not prohibit MSOs, it seeks to significantly limit the role and influence of non-lawyer-owned entities that provide services to law firms. As a result, the legislation has quickly become a focal point in the ongoing national debate over the future of law firm ownership, investment, and regulation.

The Rise of Legal MSOs

To understand the significance of HB 5487, it is helpful to first take a quick look at why legal MSOs are increasing in popularity.

Under a typical legal MSO structure, a law firm remains owned and controlled by licensed attorneys, while a separate management company provides non-legal services such as:

• marketing;
• human resources;
• technology and software support;
• billing and collections;
• administrative staffing;
• real estate and facilities management; and
• strategic business planning.

Investors may own all or part of the MSO, allowing them to participate economically in the growth of the business services platform without directly owning the law firm itself. For decades, this same structure has been used in the healthcare industry to navigate corporate practice of medicine restrictions by separating clinical decision-making from administrative operations. Proponents of the legal MSO structure have adopted this same roadmap for attracting outside capital without violating similar decision-making and professional responsibility rules applicable to lawyers.

The Concerns Driving Illinois’ Response

Supporters of HB 5487 argue that legal services are fundamentally different from other professional services and that increased investor involvement creates risks that existing ethics rules may not adequately address. The primary concern centers on attorney independence. Critics of legal MSO arrangements worry that investors may seek to influence law firm operations in ways that prioritize profitability over client interests. They argue that even if investors do not technically own the law firm, significant economic leverage can create pressure on lawyers’ professional judgment.

Questions frequently raised include:

• Can an investor influence settlement decisions?
• Can an investor affect attorney compensation?
• Can business objectives indirectly shape litigation strategy?
• Does a revenue-based management fee create impermissible fee sharing?
• At what point does operational oversight become control?

These concerns have become increasingly prominent as private equity firms, litigation finance providers, and other investment groups have shown greater interest in the legal sector.

What HB 5487 Seeks to Do

While the final impact of the legislation will depend on implementation and interpretation, the bill generally seeks to (a) draw a bright line between legal services and business services, (b) establish disclosure requirements, (c) codify the prohibition against fee splitting, and (d) create a private right of enforcement and statutory damages.

HB 5487 prohibits non-lawyer-owned entities from exercising control over core aspects of legal practice, including:

• interfering with the professional judgment of attorneys;
• exercising control over or being delegated the power to: (a) reveal, own, or determine the content of client records or to reveal any attorney-client communications, or (b) select, hire, or terminate attorneys or allied legal staff such as paralegals, or set competency, productivity, or proficiency parameters for attorneys or allied legal staff; or
• charge any fees to attorneys or law firms that are directly or indirectly based on the attorney’s fees, revenues, or profits.

In addition to the restrictions limiting non-lawyer control over operations, HB 5487 states that (a) MSOs cannot limit an attorney or allied legal staff member from competing with the law firm following termination nor can they prohibit attorneys or allied legal staff members from disparaging the law firm, (b) compensation arrangements cannot be tied to a law firm’s fees, revenues, or profits, and (c) firms that are party to a management services agreement must disclose in all attorney-client contracts the existence of such an agreement and the material terms of the agreement.

Law firms or MSOs violating this new law may be subject to statutory damages of $10,000 per violation or three times the actual damages incurred by the client, whichever is greater. While MSOs still remain legal in Illinois, MSOs and law firms being serviced by an MSO will need to be extra vigilant in ensuring that the management agreements are compliant with Illinois state law.

Lastly, it is worth noting that larger law firms have effectively been exempted from HB 5487; HB 5487 only applies to attorneys or law firms operating in Illinois (a) with annual global revenue from the provision of legal services below $300,000,000 or (b) that derived 50% or more of their revenue from contingent fee arrangements in each of the preceding three years.

A Potential Blueprint for Other States?

Perhaps the most important question is whether Illinois represents an isolated development or the beginning of a broader national trend.

State bar associations and regulators across the country are actively debating the role of alternative business structures, private equity investment, and non-lawyer participation in legal services. While some jurisdictions have experimented with expanded ownership models, others have expressed concerns about preserving traditional professional independence principles.

Illinois may become an early test case for how legislatures and regulators respond to the growing commercialization of legal services.

If the legislation proves effective—or politically popular—it would not be surprising to see similar proposals emerge in other jurisdictions. In fact, California is already working on similar legislation (California Assembly Bill 2305).

Looking Ahead

Regardless of one’s view of legal MSOs, one thing is clear: the conversation has shifted. The debate is no longer about whether investors are interested in the legal industry. They are. The debate is now about where regulators should draw the line between legitimate business support and impermissible influence over the practice of law.

For law firms, investors, consultants, and transactional attorneys, Illinois’ HB 5487 serves as an important reminder that legal MSO structures operate within a rapidly evolving regulatory environment. Those who participate in these transactions must continue to balance innovation, growth, and investment opportunities against the profession’s longstanding commitment to independent legal judgment.

The outcome of that balancing act may help shape the future of the legal industry for years to come.

If you have any questions about the information in this alert, please contact Evan Atkinson.

---

[1] As of this writing, the bill is pending signature or veto by Gov. JB Pritzker.