So, Arizona a couple of years  ago became the first state to allow non-lawyers and entities to own law firms; Utah is trying to follow suit, so to speak. No one outside the legal world notices or seems to care about this development because: a) it is only a state or two; and b) who cares who owns law firms, right?

Well, the answer to a) is that this is likely a trend, one that we have seen in other industries re: consolidation and corporatizing across the country (and even the globe). So, the belief is this will help the end user/client by, hopefully, lowering fees and expenses for certain legal services, such as, as will, drafting corporate documents, wills and trusts, and simple, standardized agreements in various industries. In short, those practices powered by forms (we all have them but some practices are dominated by them). The practices that are form-driven can be, in large part, efficiently run by associates and paralegals. Such practices should brace themselves for the coming consolidation, and the increased competition and concomitant downward pressure on fees and margins.

Clients of such firms could benefit, provided that services remain at the same level, in spite of diminishing margins. 

However, firms of trial lawyers should be largely unaffected. Why? For better or worse, what we do is scaleable only so far.  That is, you can't standardize persuasion, fight, creativity and the knowledge and recollection of a thousand different cases playing out.

In the world of trial lawyers, the future now (more than ever) belongs to the small firms, the light legal infantry where every office is armed with the same technological weapons as the lumbering and struggling behemoths. The coming consolidation will only highlight this reality. 

So, no one is going to be buying up RutLaw any time soon. But that is okay, as we are not for sale.