international frameworks

international jurisdictions have pioneered legal profession liberalization, with the uk leading comprehensive reform through the legal services act 2007¹, while the european union definitively rejected forced liberalization through the december 19, 2024 ecj halmer decision² that upheld national restrictions on purely financial investment in law firms. these divergent approaches provide instructive models for us jurisdictions considering regulatory reform.

uk legal services act 2007: comprehensive liberalization

implementation: 2008-2011 phased introduction¹
scope: 40+ sections establishing comprehensive abs regulatory regime (sections 71-111)¹
achievement: first jurisdiction to systematically allow non-lawyer ownership since 2007¹
global influence: model for subsequent international abs development

legislative framework structure

primary authority: legal services act 2007, part 5 (sections 71-111)¹
purpose: enable lawyers and non-lawyers to form legal partnerships and companies for reserved legal services¹

key statutory provisions

section 71 - introduction to part 5:

“the provisions of this part have effect for the purpose of regulating the carrying on of reserved legal activities and other activities by licensed bodies. in this act ‘licensed body’ means a body which holds a licence in force under this part.”

section 72 - licensable bodies:

• bodies with at least one manager who is not an authorised person
• bodies with persons having interest/indirect interest in shares who are not authorised persons
• requirement to become licensed body under part 5 provisions

sections 85-95 - licensing and penalty framework:

• reserved legal activities authorised by license
• conditions subject to license grant
• comprehensive penalty structure with maximum amounts

enforcement and penalties

maximum financial penalties (2011 rules):

• licensed bodies: £250 million maximum penalty
• manager/employees: £50 million maximum penalty
• authority: licensing authority may impose penalties according to licensing rules

penalty scope: demonstrates serious regulatory approach to compliance and professional standards

professional indemnity insurance requirements

abs insurance requirements:

• minimum coverage: £3 million per claim for abs entities
• comparison: traditional partnerships require £2 million minimum
• differential rationale: higher requirements reflect increased risk profile of non-lawyer ownership

qualifying insurers: must offer policies with specific minimum wording and features
coverage by entity type:

• sole practitioners and partnerships: £2 million per claim
• llps and limited companies: £3 million per claim

market transformation impact

professional evolution: transformed legal service delivery in england and wales
innovation catalyst: enabled new service delivery models and business structures
precedential value: provided proof-of-concept for comprehensive liberalization
implementation success: sustained market development without major consumer protection issues

european union: halmer case decision

the december 19, 2024 ecj judgment in case c-295/23 halmer rechtsanwaltsgesellschaft ug v. rechtsanwaltskammer münchen² definitively upheld eu member states’ authority to prohibit purely financial investment in law firms, prioritizing lawyer independence over unrestricted capital movement and rejecting comprehensive eu-wide liberalization.

case background and parties

case title: halmer rechtsanwaltsgesellschaft ug v. rechtsanwaltskammer münchen²
advocate-general: manuel campos sanchez-bordona (spain)²
opinion date: july 4, 2024²
court: european court of justice (ecj)
final judgment: december 19, 2024 by ecj grand chamber²
case number: c-295/23²
outcome: upheld german restrictions on purely financial investors²

plaintiff details:

• founder: dr. daniel halmer (lawyer and managing director of legal tech company conny gmbh)
• license: received law practice license from munich bar association (rak) in 2020
• share transfer: 2021 assignment of 51 of 100 shares to austrian limited liability company

defendant action: munich bar association revoked plaintiff’s license citing austrian llc not licensed to practice law in germany or austria

legal framework at issue

german federal lawyers’ act (brao):

• current prohibition: financial investors may not hold interest in law firm companies
• exception structure: certain non-lawyer professionals allowed shareholdings (tax advisers, accountants, pharmacists)
• inconsistency issue: selective permission creates regulatory inconsistency

eu law questions:

• whether restrictions violate eu capital movement principles
• compatibility with eu establishment rights
• compliance with eu services directive framework

advocate-general opinion analysis

advocate-general opinion: spanish ag considered brao restrictions potentially inconsistent with eu law (july 4, 2024)
ecj rejection: court disagreed with ag opinion, upholding member state regulatory authority

key reasoning:

• regulatory discretion: eu member states have broad discretion regarding legal profession regulation
• consistency requirement: imposed restrictions must be internally consistent
• selective prohibition: allowing some non-lawyer professionals while prohibiting others creates impermissible inconsistency

final judgment and implications

ecj holding: court upheld german third-party ownership restrictions as justified by overriding public interest

legal reasoning: purely financial investors could:

• compromise lawyer independence through profit-maximization pressure
• influence client selection and business decisions for financial reasons
• conflict with professional obligations and ethical requirements

quoted holding: financial investors might “influence the lawyers in their choice of clients and business decisions for purely financial reasons”

eu-wide impact: judgment prevents forced liberalization across member states:

• regulatory discretion: member states retain authority over professional independence requirements
• national sovereignty: professional rules may “differ greatly from one member state to the other”
• investment restrictions: purely financial investors remain excludable from law firm ownership

precedential effect: establishes clear ecj precedent supporting restrictive approaches to law firm ownership across the european union

primary source: ecj judgment c-295/23

advisory representation: hengeler mueller advised halmer in this landmark case

comparative international models

australia: pioneer in common law liberalization

new south wales (2001): first common-law jurisdiction to allow non-lawyer ownership³

• structure: incorporated legal practices (ilps) enabling multi-disciplinary practice³
• control requirements: lawyer members maintain 51% control and income share³
• performance assessment: “low amount of public complaints” and “increased innovation and competition”³

canada: selective liberalization

ontario: law society allows mdps with professionals supporting legal practice
british columbia: introduced mdp framework (2010)
structure: multi-discipline practice partnerships with complementary professions

regulatory evolution timeline

chronological development:

• 1991: washington d.c. allows limited non-lawyer ownership
• 2001: australia (new south wales) implements comprehensive reforms
• 2007: uk legal services act creates abs framework
• 2020: arizona eliminates rule 5.4 restrictions
• 2025: puerto rico becomes fourth us jurisdiction allowing non-lawyer ownership
• 2024: ecj halmer decision rejects eu-wide liberalization, upholds national restrictions

regulatory approaches comparison

comprehensive liberalization models

united kingdom approach:

• systematic legislative reform (legal services act 2007)
• phased implementation with extensive preparation
• comprehensive regulatory oversight with substantial penalties
• insurance requirements reflecting risk assessment

arizona approach:

• elimination of rule 5.4 restrictions without pilot testing
• direct supreme court oversight and regulation
• mandatory compliance lawyer and insurance requirements
• dramatic growth in approved entities (19 to 136+ in three years)

limited/pilot approaches

utah regulatory sandbox:

• pilot program for regulatory innovation testing
• office of legal services innovation (olsi) oversight
• contraction from 39 to 11 entities due to tightened eligibility
• program expires august 2027 with assessment pending

washington d.c. framework:

• limited exceptions allowing specific non-lawyer participation
• longest-standing framework in us (since 1991)
• targeted approach rather than comprehensive liberalization

restrictive maintenance

most us states: continue adherence to model rule 5.4 restrictions⁴
american bar association: resolution 402 (august 2022) reaffirmed opposition to non-lawyer ownership⁵
germany (pending): current restrictions under ecj challenge may be overturned

international market dynamics

cross-border considerations

regulatory arbitrage: firms can structure operations to take advantage of permissive jurisdictions
international practice: multinational firms must navigate varying regulatory frameworks
investment flows: capital seeks jurisdictions with favorable regulatory environments

global law firm networks

big four accounting firms: leverage international abs frameworks for legal service delivery

• beginning 2014: pwc, kpmg, and ey launched uk abs licenses
• strategic integration: full integration of affiliated law firms into umbrella networks
• us market entry: kpmg became first big four firm authorized to practice law in us through arizona abs

technology and innovation drivers

legal tech platforms: capital-intensive innovation requiring non-lawyer investment
artificial intelligence: implementation requires significant capital unavailable to traditional partnerships
service delivery innovation: technology-enabled models competing with traditional practice

implications for us jurisdictions

international precedents provide evidence

uk success: systematic liberalization without major consumer protection problems¹
australia experience: positive outcomes with “low public complaints and increased innovation”³
market development: sustained growth in alternative service delivery models

federal considerations

foreign investment oversight: doj/cfius review authority for significant foreign investment
interstate commerce: potential conflicts between permissive and restrictive state approaches
professional licensing: state-by-state regulation creates complex compliance environment

future international developments

european union implications

potential scope: 27 member states could be required to liberalize simultaneously
market opportunity: unprecedented access to european legal services market
regulatory harmonization: possible eu-wide regulatory framework development

asia-pacific expansion

new zealand: independent review report (march 2023) examining regulation modernization
other jurisdictions: singapore, hong kong considering regulatory innovation approaches

global regulatory trends

access to justice pressure: international recognition of legal service accessibility challenges
technology disruption: ai and legal tech requiring capital investment
professional service evolution: accounting, consulting precedents influencing legal profession reform

---

international frameworks demonstrate divergent approaches to legal profession liberalization. the uk’s 15+ year success with comprehensive reform contrasts sharply with the eu’s rejection of forced liberalization through halmer, highlighting that regulatory approaches must balance innovation with professional independence concerns.

references

[1] Legal Services Act 2007. UK Parliament

[2] Case C-295/23, Halmer Rechtsanwaltsgesellschaft UG v Rechtsanwaltskammer München. Court of Justice of the European Union (Grand Chamber), December 19, 2024. EUR-Lex

[3] Mark, Steve A. and Cowdroy, Georgina. “Incorporated Legal Practices - a New Era in the Provision of Legal Services in the State of New South Wales.” SSRN

[4] Model Rule 5.4: Professional Independence of a Lawyer. American Bar Association

[5] Resolution 402 (August 2022). American Bar Association House of Delegates