A Different Way to Structure a Legal Practice
May 2026
After more than 20 years practicing inside large firms and financial institutions, I started asking a question a lot of experienced attorneys eventually ask: is this still the best structure for how I want to practice?
It's not really a question about working less, or even about working differently in any superficial sense. It's about alignment.
Most of my thinking on this comes from time spent on the client side. After three years at a large firm, I spent the next twenty inside financial institutions, first a large investment adviser, then a private investment fund firm that grew significantly over the decade I was there. In those roles, I hired and worked with a lot of outside counsel across a wide range of matters. You get a clear view from that seat. You see where the traditional model fits the work, and where it quietly doesn't.
The model does a lot of things well. It trains strong lawyers, supports genuinely complex matters, and provides the infrastructure that certain kinds of work really do need. But a lot of work flows through that same structure by default, work that doesn't actually require it. And when it does, the economics often don't reflect how the work gets done, or who's actually doing it.
That shows up in a few places. Economics that don't fully reflect the value of client relationships. Internal structures that shape how work gets done. Limited flexibility in how a practice evolves over time. None of that is a criticism of the model. It was built to serve a particular kind of work at scale, and for that work, it remains the right fit. But for attorneys with established relationships or more focused practices, an alternative can make sense.
Part of what has made that alternative more viable is how much more efficiently a practice can be run today. The current generation of legal AI tools, used thoughtfully, can handle a meaningful portion of work that previously required additional layers of support. They don't replace judgment or experience, but they do change the equation. It's now possible to maintain high standards while operating with far less infrastructure than most people assume is necessary.
A simple example: an experienced attorney originates and manages a client relationship, does a meaningful portion of the work, and still sees a relatively small percentage of what the client is billed. That structure makes sense inside a large institution with significant overhead and shared economics. But it's not the only way to structure a practice.
A more independent model flips the orientation. Rather than the practice being built around the institution, the structure is built around the attorney and the client relationships. Client relationships are managed directly, work is structured based on what the matter actually needs, support is brought in selectively where it adds value, and the economics more closely reflect the underlying work. The end result isn't less rigor or lower quality. If anything, it tends to be more focused. The difference is that the structure around the work is intentionally designed rather than inherited.
One of the more interesting things I've experienced is the shift in perspective that comes with being responsible for your own practice. Deadlines don't go away, and clients still expect responsiveness and high-quality work. But the ability to decide which engagements to take on, how to structure the work, and when and where to get it done has a different feel than operating within a more rigid framework. It's a subtle shift, but a meaningful one.
It's also had an impact outside of work. I have a full household. Three boys, three girls ranging from teenagers down to a one-year-old, plus two dogs, and all the chaos that comes with that. Being able to structure my practice in a way that lets me be more present for that part of my life has been a real benefit, and one I didn't fully appreciate until I experienced it.
Moeller Law is built around these ideas. It's a platform for experienced attorneys who want to practice on their own terms without going it completely alone. The model tends to work best for attorneys who already have client relationships, who have focused practices that can operate efficiently without large internal teams, and who are thinking seriously about how they want to practice going forward.
For those interested in how this works in practice, more detail is available here: https://www.moellerbusinesslaw.com/for-lawyers
It's not for everyone. Many attorneys will prefer the traditional firm structure, and for good reason. But if you've spent enough time in that system to understand both its strengths and its tradeoffs, it's worth at least considering what an alternative might look like.
I'm not trying to convince anyone this is the right path. But if you've been thinking about these questions, I'm always happy to compare notes.
