Top Law Schools

I was just wondering if anyone has thoughts about owning two different law firms. I know this forum is biglaw focused. But I think that I have an interest in owning two different law firms as a solo lawyer. It would be pay much more lucrative for me to do it this way rather than combining the two unrelated practices into one law firm.

Is there any rule against this? I've seen articles where you can work for two firms as long as they give you permission. And you watch for conflicts. But is there anything against owning two law firms simultaneously?

I am genuinely intrigued as to how you imagine this playing out and making more money with two "firms" (both run by yourself presumably?) than with one.

Because you could market them each differently? At the end of the day it's still essentially one firm but with two "brands"

Please share though I promise I won't steal your idea

Anonymous User wrote: ↑

Wed Dec 09, 2020 9:23 pm

I am genuinely intrigued as to how you imagine this playing out and making more money with two "firms" (both run by yourself presumably?) than with one.

Because you could market them each differently? At the end of the day it's still essentially one firm but with two "brands"

Please share though I promise I won't steal your idea

Create one firm that targets a niche through the internet. Create another one that I hold myself out as the owner and work referrals.

Hol up - I'm fascinated. Are you proposing that you're going to have a dummy firm that farms clients. Then refers the client to yourself and collect a referral fee for said dummy firm?

I don't know enough about legal ethics to say whether this violates ABA rules or not, but I'm gonna go on a limb and say it's probably not kosher. Even if it's a gray area, is the extra...what 5k/year you'll make doing this plan worth risking your license/destroying your reputation for? Very confused how you plan on making money through the dummy firm otherwise.

It wouldn’t be a dummy firm. I would take cases in firm B. But would only take the best cases and refer out the rest. I’d take more cases in firm A and actively market it with the idea being to hire an associate for firm B who could then handle a larger percentage of cases in house.

Anonymous User wrote: ↑

Thu Dec 10, 2020 1:21 am

It wouldn’t be a dummy firm. I would take cases in firm B. But would only take the best cases and refer out the rest. I’d take more cases in firm A and actively market it with the idea being to hire an associate for firm B who could then handle a larger percentage of cases in house.

Two questions:
1. Are you in a state that allows lawyers to be compensated for referrals?
2. Why is it better to operate two firms? Why not just market the heck out of firm A, hire the associate there to help you with cases, and refer out the cases you don't want? What does having this artificial separation get you?

polareagle wrote: ↑

Thu Dec 10, 2020 1:29 am

Anonymous User wrote: ↑

Thu Dec 10, 2020 1:21 am

It wouldn’t be a dummy firm. I would take cases in firm B. But would only take the best cases and refer out the rest. I’d take more cases in firm A and actively market it with the idea being to hire an associate for firm B who could then handle a larger percentage of cases in house.

Two questions:
1. Are you in a state that allows lawyers to be compensated for referrals?
2. Why is it better to operate two firms? Why not just market the heck out of firm A, hire the associate there to help you with cases, and refer out the cases you don't want? What does having this artificial separation get you?

Yes, in a state that allows referral fees. Two firms equals two websites. Much easier to rank for website b when it is it’s own niche rather than combined with another practice area.

The guy that was pulling in $10mm a year doing personal injury mentioned having an ownership interest in multiple law firms, including ones he spun work off to

Definitely Not North wrote: ↑

Thu Dec 10, 2020 2:06 am

The guy that was pulling in $10mm a year doing personal injury mentioned having an ownership interest in multiple law firms, including ones he spun work off to

Nick Rowley, an ultra-high-end plaintiffs’ lawyer, owns more than one firm (or at least more than one brand). I think one is more Iowa-focused and one is more California-focused but I’m not positive about how it works.

This also sounds like an overcomplicated plan to me though.

Iowahawk wrote: ↑

Thu Dec 10, 2020 12:07 pm

Definitely Not North wrote: ↑

Thu Dec 10, 2020 2:06 am

The guy that was pulling in $10mm a year doing personal injury mentioned having an ownership interest in multiple law firms, including ones he spun work off to

Nick Rowley, an ultra-high-end plaintiffs’ lawyer, owns more than one firm (or at least more than one brand). I think one is more Iowa-focused and one is more California-focused but I’m not positive about how it works.

This also sounds like an overcomplicated plan to me though.

This is helpful. Thanks!

Iowahawk wrote: ↑

Thu Dec 10, 2020 12:07 pm

Definitely Not North wrote: ↑

Thu Dec 10, 2020 2:06 am

The guy that was pulling in $10mm a year doing personal injury mentioned having an ownership interest in multiple law firms, including ones he spun work off to

Nick Rowley, an ultra-high-end plaintiffs’ lawyer, owns more than one firm (or at least more than one brand). I think one is more Iowa-focused and one is more California-focused but I’m not positive about how it works.

This also sounds like an overcomplicated plan to me though.

This is helpful. Thanks!

I've seen this plenty of times with plaintiff lawyers trying to make it in practice areas where judgements and settlements are not as common and take longer to get, but when they come they're huge (e.g. False Claims Act and antitrust plaintiff's lawyers). When I google the lawyers, I've found that they have a separate website/marketing targeted at more keep-the-lights-on type cases (e.g., car crash personal injury). I imagine they pay the bills with the car crashes and buy the lake house if/when the big treble damages qui tam case hits. I also imagine that they keep the firms separate because they want to convey to the FCA/antitrust clients that they're uber-focused and knowledgeable on the one area of law. I never asked, because I was usually going against them in the FCA/antitrust cases and it never came up.