Note: This article is a modified version of an academic paper I wrote while doing my LL.M. degree at Cornell Tech.
1. Introduction
Globalization, technology, and changing client demands are transforming the legal industry. Among the most disruptive forces is the emergence of the Big Four accounting firms, namely Deloitte, EY, KPMG, and PwC as major players in the legal sector. Traditionally these firms are prominent players in accounting, auditing, and consulting services. However, in later years they have started leveraging their global reach and strong clientele to expand their expertise into legal services. This creates pressure for traditional law firms who will have to compete with these multidisciplinary experts.
This paper explores the strategic motivations behind the Big Four’s penetration into the legal market and examines the regulatory challenges they face, particularly in jurisdictions like the United States, where their operations are confined to Alternative Legal Service Providers (ALSPs). By contrast, in regions such as Europe, more permissive regulatory environments have allowed them to establish full-fledged competitors to law firms. These developments are reshaping the traditional law firm model, with implications for practice areas, pricing structures, human resources, and client preferences.
Beyond market dynamics, the Big Four’s expansion also raises broader questions about the future of the legal profession. What are the ethical and professional concerns associated with the Big Four’s multidisciplinary model? And how is technology, particularly artificial intelligence, enabling their growth?
2. History and Strategic Motivations
2.1. Brief History of the Big Four
In the late 1980s the market of auditing, accounting, and taxation & management consulting was dominated by eight professional services firms, most of which had been established in the UK and the US and have expanded internationally ever since. Through a series of mergers and acquisitions, as well as involvement in financial scandals, these eight firms, colloquially known as the “Big Eight”, became the “Big Six”, “Big Five”, and eventually “Big Four” after 2001. Nowadays the Big Four are Deloitte, Ernst and Young (known as EY), KPMG, and Price Waterhouse Coopers (known as PwC)[1].
Legally, none of the Big Four is structured as one entity. They are coordinated networks of professional services firms that operate globally under common names, standards, and resource sharing infrastructures. All four firms enjoy widespread recognition and brand awareness. They serve virtually all of Fortune 500 companies[2] in the US, and a very large percentage of the UK’s top public companies[3]. Beyond accounting, these firms have formed consultancy branches, which despite initial hurdles, in later years have managed to become major drivers of their growth[4].
2.2. Entering the Legal Market
The Big Four’s entry into the legal sector was not a sudden move but a gradual and strategic evolution. This journey began in the 1990s, as the firms started offering ancillary legal services related to their core advisory practices. As market leaders, these firms are also regarded as experts in interpreting and analyzing tax law internationally. Giving relevant advice to their clients came as a natural extension of their tax consulting services. Over time, this approach expanded to cover other areas such as employment law, compliance, and regulatory advice[5]. In more recent years, the Big Four accounting firms have established a notable presence in the legal market, especially in fields like regulatory risk and compliance, along with due diligence for mergers and acquisitions. Frequently they bundle these services alongside their tax, audit, and financial support, or their consulting solutions[6].
The Big Four entered the legal market to offer a one-stop-shop for business solutions, addressing the needs of multinational corporations seeking integrated legal, financial, and consulting services. Leveraging their global networks, established client relationships, and advisory expertise, they positioned themselves as comprehensive advisors capable of delivering cross-disciplinary solutions. This transition from specialized accounting and consulting to integrated legal services enables the Big Four to redefine traditional legal practice and provide added value that many law firms cannot match. Their extensive international presence further strengthens their competitive advantage in corporate transactions[7].
Despite their strategic advantages, the Big Four’s legal ambitions have not been without challenges. In markets like the United States, regulatory restrictions, mostly thanks to the American Bar Association’s efforts, prevent them from operating as full-service law firms, confining their legal offerings to alternative legal service providers (ALSPs). However, in other regions, such as the UK, more permissive regulatory environments have allowed them to establish structures that operate as fully integrated law firms, allowing them to compete directly with traditional law firms and practices. These differing regulatory landscapes have shaped the scope and nature of the Big Four’s legal services, as explored further in the next section.
Although the Big Four’s legal units are still small compared to their audit, consultancy, and deal advisory divisions, their performance in the legal sector showcases steady growth and resilience. Collectively, Deloitte Legal, EY’s law firm, KPMG’s legal arm, and PwC Legal generated an estimated UK revenue of £260 million in 2023-2024[8]. The Big Four continue to invest in their legal services and set up themselves for future expansion in the legal market. Currently, the Big Four employ thousands of lawyers globally, with the headcount across 72 countries increasing from an average of 2,200 lawyers in 2021[9] to over 3,000. Namely, KPMG[10] and PwC[11] boast numbers of over 3,700 lawyers, followed by Deloitte with 2,500[12] lawyers and EY with 2,400.[13]
3. Regulatory Challenges and Opportunity for New Business
3.1. The Regulatory Constraints across different markets
The success of the Big Four’s expansion into the legal sector is significantly influenced by the regulatory frameworks governing legal practice in various jurisdictions. These regulations often dictate whether the Big Four can operate as full-service law firms or are confined to offering alternative legal service provider (ALSP) practices. In highly regulated jurisdictions like the US and India, they focus on ALSP services that do not require legal practice licenses. In contrast, in more liberalized markets like the UK, they operate as integrated legal and business service providers, blurring the lines between law firms and consultancies. This flexibility allows them to adapt to local conditions while maintaining a competitive edge globally.
Due to their global structure and nature, the Big Four refer to their legal practices as a network of distinct but related entities and the extent to which they can provide legal services is different based on local laws and regulations. For example, Deloitte Legal’s website[14] offers a disclaimer that “[e]ach Deloitte Legal practice is legally separate and independent, and cannot obligate any other Deloitte Legal practice”, while PwC’s Legal Business Solutions presents itself as a “network of legal, technology and consulting professionals.”[15]
3.2. Opening the Legal Industry to nonlawyers
Before diving deeper into the various approaches to the Big Four’s entry into the legal sector, it’s worth addressing the primary point of discussion about this topic; whether the legal sector should be open to nonlawyers. This debate is basically about the liberalization of law practice, and entails questions such as: Should nonlawyers be able to own a stake in law firms? Can clients’ legal interests be served by nonlawyers? Which legal services can a nonlawyer provide?[16]
Different jurisdictions have given different answers to the above questions.
3.3. Limitations in the US
In the United States, the regulatory landscape is particularly restrictive. The American Bar Association (ABA) and state bar associations impose strict rules that prohibit nonlawyer ownership of law firms. These rules are based on concerns about preserving professional independence and protecting client confidentiality. As a result, the Big Four cannot establish full-service law firms. Instead, they are limited to offering ALSP services, such as contract management, legal process outsourcing, and compliance advisory. These services complement their broader business offerings but fall short of the full range of legal services provided by traditional law firms.
Specifically, ABA’s Model Rule 5.4 prohibits lawyers or law firms from sharing legal fees or ownership of a practice with nonlawyers[17]. This rule was first adopted in 1969, and its purpose was “to protect the lawyer’s professional independence of judgment.“[18] Critics argue that these restrictions stifle innovation, make it harder for new capital to enter the legal market, and limit access to affordable legal services. Opening the legal market to nonlawyer ownership would enhance competition and enable a new business model better suited to the industry’s needs[19]. On the other hand, supporters of the current restrictions argue that allowing nonlawyer ownership would prioritize profits over client interests, undermining the profession’s core values, leading to the commoditization of legal services[20].
Some states, such as Utah and Arizona, have begun experimenting with regulatory experiments to test new ownership models, but widespread adoption remains uncertain. In summer 2020 the Supreme Court of Utah announced justice reforms which enabled nonlawyer ownership of law firms. Utah created a “sandbox” meaning a controlled program to assess the new policy[21]. The initial plan was for the sandbox to last two years before the first results were evaluated[22]. What this reform practically meant was that Alternative Business Structures (ABS) were allowed to operate in the legal domain. The project was continued beyond its initial period and in 2024 it entered Phase 2 which is planned to run until 2027[23].
Only weeks after Utah announced its experiment, the state of Arizona also approved nonlawyer ownership of law firms. The Arizona approach is not a sandbox, but still allows for ABSs to be formed after undergoing a rigorous evaluation process. Arizona nonlawyers are called “Legal Paraprofessionals” and are able to practice only in certain areas of the law, with limited jurisdiction on civil and criminal cases[24].
The Big Four accounting firms are at the core of these developments. Despite the liberalization efforts in the aforementioned states, none of the accounting firms have yet established a law firm in the United States[25]. Their offerings in the US typically include services such as contract management, e-discovery, compliance advisory, and document review. These services comprise a growing segment of the legal market and are associated with what ALSPs seek to offer[26]. Unlike traditional law firms, which rely heavily on the billable hour model, ALSPs might often use technology and standardized processes to deliver these services more efficiently.
Apart from that, some of the Big Four have already formed strategic alliances with major American law firms that have national presence. However, they have been very careful in not calling these collaborations anything more than “alliances”. Deloitte has chosen the law firm of Epstein Becker Green[27], KPMG has signed an agreement with Ogletree Deakins through its KPMG Legal branch in Germany[28], and PwC has formed a coalition with immigration law firm Fragomen[29].
3.4. Liberalization in the UK and Other Regions
In contrast to the United States, some countries in Europe provide a regulatory environment that allows the Big Four to operate as full-service law firms. Mainly, in the United Kingdom, nonlawyer ownership of legal practices is permitted, enabling the Big Four to integrate legal services into their broader professional service offerings. Therefore, they can compete directly with traditional law firms across a range of practice areas, including tax, employment, corporate law, and mergers and acquisitions.
The United Kingdom’s Legal Services Act of 2007 was a pivotal moment for the legal industry in the country, introducing Alternative Business Structures (ABS) that allow multidisciplinary practices to provide both legal and non-legal services under one roof. Since its implementation, around 1,500 ABSs have been licensed, transforming the market. The Big Four quickly capitalized on this opportunity, establishing legal divisions that leverage their extensive client relationships and global networks. Concurrently, the rise of ALSPs has intensified competition in the legal market, driving improvements in service quality and efficiency[30].
In 2013-2014 PwC, KPMG, and EY all filed applications to launch an ABS that will allow them to provide legal services in the UK[31]. Deloitte was the last one to create an ABS in 2018[32], but has since been equally successful.
In Asia the Big Four have also made strides in the legal market. In major countries like China, India, Indonesia, and Turkey these accounting firms already have a strong presence and are currently exploring ways to penetrate the law industry. In Singapore and in Hong Kong they have already established law practices, both with local and international appeal[33].
4. Impact on the Traditional Law Firm Model
4.1. How are Big Four firms taking business away from traditional law firms?
Traditional law firms are particularly vulnerable in areas like tax law and transactional work, where the Big Four’s bundled services provide a clear advantage. The main advantage of the Big Four is their integrated service model, which combines auditing, accounting, consulting, and legal services under one umbrella.
Multinational companies appreciate this “one-stop-shop” approach. But the Big Four’s value proposition goes one step further. They purport to focus on business goals rather than specific legal needs[34]. This is a more practical and business-oriented perspective that resonates with in-house legal teams and C-suite executives, who value solutions that align with their strategic objectives. They emphasize their operational insights, and technological integrations to provide business solutions rather than merely advice[35].
While the Big Four do not aim to compete across all legal practice areas, they have strategically targeted those that complement their existing service lines. Tax law, compliance, corporate law, and M&A are particularly impacted. These are areas where their existing expertise in financial and consulting services provides a natural extension into legal offerings[36]. However, their ambition is to be able to offer expertise catered to every client’s specific needs. Areas such employment, immigration, international arbitration, cybersecurity and data privacy, are of particular interest to the Big Four’s legal branches[37]. For example, PwC’s UK legal team consists of professionals from various practice areas who all work in a unified team. So, if a client wants to tackle a climate change case, PwC will offer not just a tax attorney, but also an environmental lawyer[38]. This indicates how the Big Four are not just trying to compete in the legal market but want to grow beyond it.
The above discussion begs the question: can traditional law firms adapt to these market newcomers? The Big Four’s expansion into legal services represents a growing threat to traditional law firms, especially in practice areas where efficiency, cost savings, and integration with other business services are critical. Nevertheless, more specialized and high-level legal work is still not in the crosshairs of Big Four. High-stakes litigation or advisory services requiring deep legal expertise are dominated by traditional law firms and will continue for the foreseeable future[39]. This leaves room for traditional firms to differentiate themselves by focusing on bespoke legal work, prestige, and specialized knowledge, instead of broad and generalized but often less accurate solutions.
Besides that, some law firms have taken the opposite direction. Big law firms are following closely the practices of these accounting firms and improve their own strategies by building networks of professionals from across industries and with global outreach[40]. Some law firms, especially in the US are big proponents of further deregulation, because this would help them expand their scope and business model into more professional areas[41].
All in all, the middle market and generalist law firms are the ones most vulnerable from these developments. They will have to adapt to a market where not only the Big Four are changing the concept of delivering legal services, but also where BigLaw is following the same path[42].
4.2. Client perceptions of the Big Four as legal service providers versus traditional law firms
The Big Four’s entry into the legal market has intensified competition for clients, particularly in corporate legal services where they predominantly operate. Legal costs have always been significantly higher than other expenditures, which constitutes a pain point for corporate clients whose main driver for business operation is cost efficiency. The variety of professional services combined with deep integration of technology is evidently the main reason these clients also choose the Big Four’s legal services. Corporate clients already use the Big Four for their other professional services and perceive them as reliable and innovative. They know that sometimes businesspeople are able to offer more comprehensive solutions compared to lawyers[43].
The most notable difference compared to traditional law firms is reputation. While the Big Four are seen as efficient and tech-savvy, they may lack the prestige and deep specialization in certain areas (e.g., complex litigation) traditionally associated with top law firms like Kirkland & Ellis or Skadden[44]. This distinction often leads companies to bifurcate their legal needs, using the Big Four for operational and compliance matters while retaining law firms for strategic or high-stakes legal work.
5. Attracting and Retaining Legal Talent
The Big Four firms have a value proposition that makes them attractive to new legal talent. Lawyers employed for these legal service providers can work alongside experts in fields like tax, consulting, and technology. This can be particularly appealing to legal professionals looking for opportunities to boost their career experience.
More crucially, the Big Four are able to afford higher salaries which not only attracts top talent, but also increases demand for positions within the firm. Annual revenues of the Big Four have been multiple times higher than the highest grossing law firms in the world. Deloitte leads the way with $67.2 billion for the fiscal year 2024[45], while the smallest of the four, KPMG, reported revenues of $36 billion in 2023. For comparison, the largest traditional law firm by revenue, Kirkland & Ellis had a revenue of around $7billion[46]. This is particularly evident in their UK practices, where PwC and KPMG are offering newly qualified lawyers with salaries equivalent to the ones from elite corporate law firms (Silver Circle)[47].
Another key factor that sets the Big Four apart is their ability to attract foreign talent. Especially in places like the US, where immigration laws are strict, these firms have been known to employee foreign professionals, sponsoring their visas (such as the H-1B), while often offering the same positions with lower salaries than nationals[48]. This strategy gives them access to a broader talent pool and supports their international approach.
The Big Four have long known the importance of supporting social causes as part of Environmental and Social Governance (ESG) and in relation to current events. They also have expertise in publicizing their commitments to diversity, sustainability, and community engagement, values that resonate with younger generations. Thus, they present themselves not just as employers but as organizations with a broader purpose, which attracts more millennial and younger workers[49].
When it comes to talent retention, the Big Four emphasize their impact through meaningful global work, as well as their career flexibility. They offer alternatives to the traditional partner track and advertise themselves as places with better work-life balance than traditional law firms.
6. Ethical and Professional Concerns
The Big Four’s entry into the legal market, especially in the most liberalized regions, has blurred the boundaries between legal, consulting, and auditing services and has sparked serious ethical and professional concerns.
One of the most prominent ethical issues is the potential for conflicts of interest. As global organizations offering a wide range of services, the Big Four often serve clients across overlapping industries. This broad client base increases the likelihood that the same firm might represent parties with conflicting interests in different matters[50]. For example, an audit client may become a competitor in a transaction or dispute involving another legal client of the same firm. Of course, conflict risks are not unknown to traditional law firms either. However, the Big Four’s multidisciplinary model exacerbates the risk due to the sheer scope of their operations and their expansive client networks. The issue becomes even more prominent due to the international nature of these firms, since conflicts of interest happen across different geographic regions[51].
Another major concern is the erosion of lawyer-client privilege in jurisdictions where the Big Four operate. In many countries, legal privilege is afforded only to communications between qualified lawyers and their clients. However, the Big Four often employ a mix of licensed lawyers and other professionals, such as consultants and accountants, to deliver integrated services. This setup can create ambiguity around which communications are protected and may expose sensitive client information to disclosure in regulatory or legal proceedings. Critics argue that this lack of clear privilege undermines the confidentiality that clients expect when seeking legal advice, potentially deterring clients from fully disclosing crucial information[52].
On a more abstract level, it is also argued that the Big Four cannot offer the same level of professionalism and ethical standards as traditional law firms. Law firms often emphasize that their sole focus on legal services allows them to uphold strict ethical codes and prioritize client interests without the competing pressures of other business lines. In contrast, the Big Four’s profit-driven multidisciplinary model may, in some cases, prioritize business objectives over professional ethics. This approach could commoditize legal services, reducing the profession to a transactional, rather than a fiduciary relationship.
On the flipside, the Big Four, have sought to address some of these concerns by emphasizing their network business model. Essentially, they establish separate legal divisions with independent governance structures, or independent law firms under the same name, in adherence to local ethical and regulatory standards.
7. The Role of Technology
Technology integration has always been a pain point for traditional law firms. Major law firms have been looking for new technologies but generally appear hesitant to adopt solutions that would disrupt their business model. Small and medium law firms have been struggling more because of the high costs of adopting new technology. On the contrary, the Big Four are known for incorporating all the latest technological advancements in their line of work, without hurdles or affordability issues. Nowadays this includes AI, data analytics, and automation methods. This technology-positive culture of the Big Four is also present in their legal offerings and further distinguishes them in their entry into the legal industry. All of them have heavily invested in AI and data and cloud solutions. This is particularly evident in jurisdictions where they have established full practices. According to a survey by the Financial Times, out of all participating law firms in Europe, both KPMG Abogados in Spain (pos. 6), and Deloitte Legal in the UK (pos. 30) rank among the top 50 firms in terms of innovation and digital integration[53]. This is an impressive achievement considering the history and fame of some other names on the same list, such as A&O Shearman, DLA Piper, and Norton Rose Fullbright.
PwC has been the first of the Big Four to announce their integration of AI in their legal business. In March 2023 they signed a global partnership with Harvey, an AI startup that specializes in solutions for legal professionals. Harvey is designed to assist in legal tasks such as summarizing legal documents, conducting compliance checks, and even predicting legal outcomes. PwC has expanded access to Harvey across its workforce and looks to take the technology further by developing custom products and services on top of Harvey’s AI platform[54].
KPMG has partnered with Microsoft to enhance its AI toolset. Microsoft is backing OpenAI, the creator of ChatGPT and other generative AI-powered tools. Although this is a costly investment for KPMG, they predict that their plan presents a growth opportunity worth billions of dollars in the next five years[55]. Additionally, KPMG has partnered with Google Cloud to modernize their cybersecurity and data handling infrastructure[56].
Deloitte also deployed its own AI tool called NavigAite. This solution is designed for document handling, contract review, and similar legal tasks. They also work with OpenAI and are currently training more than 120,000 professionals to use these tools[57].
Lastly, EY is using AI to enhance its legal and compliance services through a strategic alliance with Reveal, a leading provider of AI-powered eDiscovery and data analytics solutions. The goal is to help clients efficiently manage complex data discovery processes, and access large data sets through visual analytics and natural language processing models[58].
It is evident that the Big Four rely heavily on technology to carry out their operations. Their substantial investments in AI and automation give them a competitive advantage in an area where traditional law firms often lack behind. This amplifies the competition law firms face from the Big Four, as their offering not only streamlines accounting, audit, consulting, and legal services, but also implements large-scale technological solutions, including legal tech.
8. Reflections and Conclusion
The emergence of the Big Four accounting firms as significant players in the legal sector marks a transformative shift in the industry. By leveraging their multidisciplinary expertise, global reach, and advanced technological capabilities, the Big Four have disrupted traditional law firm models and reshaped client expectations. Their integrated approach, combining legal, tax, and consulting services, provides corporations with cost-efficient, comprehensive solutions that traditional law firms often struggle to replicate. This model has proven particularly appealing in practice areas like compliance, tax law, and mergers and acquisitions, highlighting the Big Four’s ability to capture market share in key segments.
The Big Four also face notable challenges, including regulatory constraints in jurisdictions, ethical concerns around conflicts of interest, and the erosion of core principles of the legal profession. While the liberalization of legal markets in countries like the UK has facilitated their growth, stricter regulations in the US and other jurisdictions have confined their legal ambitions to ALSP services. The complexity of marrying legal practices with other business lines remains a critical hurdle and adds to the limitations that the Big Four’s legal units face relative to their larger divisions.
On the competition side, traditional law firms that innovate and integrate technology into their services will likely remain competitive, while those that cling to outdated models risk losing relevance. Collaboration between the Big Four and traditional law firms could also become alternative path forward. Ultimately, the rise of the Big Four in the legal market is a direct consequence of liberalization efforts in the global legal market. Nonetheless it is also a driver for change and reevaluation of what delivering legal services entails. As the boundaries between legal and business advisory services continue to blur, both traditional firms and new entrants must prioritize innovation, efficiency, and business-centric solutions to remain competitive. Regulation in the market will remain important, but it appears that the future of the legal industry can be disrupted regardless of it.
[1] Story, The Finance. “The Big 4 Accounting Firms: A Guide to the World’s Largest Accounting.” The Finance Story (blog), July 11, 2023. https://thefinancestory.com/what-are-the-big-4-accounting-firms-and-their-history.
[2] big4accountingfirms. “Fortune 500 Auditors List (Updated for 2020) (World’s Largest Companies).” The Big 4 Accounting Firms (blog). Accessed December 7, 2024. https://big4accountingfirms.com/fortune-500-auditors-list/.
[3] McKeon, Jessica. “Who Audits Public Companies – United Kingdom.” ARC (blog), March 16, 2021. https://eaa-online.org/arc/blog/2021/03/16/who-audits-public-companies-united-kingdom/.
[4] Loxton, Liz. “How the Big Four Have Returned to Consulting with a Bang.” Accountancy Age, September 27, 2015. https://www.accountancyage.com/2015/09/27/how-the-big-four-have-returned-to-consulting-with-a-bang/.
[5] Wilkins, David B., and Maria J. Esteban Ferrer. “The Integration of Law into Global Business Solutions: The Rise, Transformation, and Potential Future of the Big Four Accountancy Networks in the Global Legal Services Market.” Law & Social Inquiry 43, no. 3 (2018): 981–1026. https://www.jstor.org/stable/26631021. p. 984-986
[6] Jim Leason, “Law Firms, ALSPs and the Big Four: Frenemies or Business Partners?,” Solicitors’ Journal 164, no. 4 (April 2021): 32-35 https://heinonline-org.proxy.library.cornell.edu/HOL/P?h=hein.journals/solicjo197&i=259.
[7] Sutton, Jaysen. “The Rise Of The Big 4.” The Corporate Law Academy. Accessed December 10, 2024. https://www.thecorporatelawacademy.com/knowledge/rise-of-the-big-4/.
[8] Booth, James, and Edin Imsirovic. “Whatever Happened to the Big Four’s Legal Dreams?” Financial News London, December 1, 2024. https://www.fnlondon.com/articles/whatever-happened-to-the-big-fours-legal-dreams-fe97dc73.
[9] Cassens Weiss, Debra. “PwC to Open US Law Firm, a Sign of Increasing Focus on Legal Operations by Big 4 Accounting Firms.” ABA Journal, September 17, 2021. https://www.abajournal.com/news/article/pwc_opens_us_legal_arm_a_sign_of_increasing_focus_on_legal_operations_by_bi.
[10] KPMG. “Legal.” Accessed December 10, 2024. https://kpmg.com/xx/en/what-we-do/services/legal.html.
[11] PricewaterhouseCoopers. “Legal Business Solutions.” PwC. Accessed December 10, 2024. https://www.pwc.com/us/en/services/tax/legal-business-solutions.html.
[12] “Deloitte Legal | Deloitte.” Accessed December 10, 2024. https://www.deloitte.com/global/en/services/legal.html.
[13] EY Legal. “Financial Services Law.” Accessed December 10, 2024. https://www.ey.com/en_us/services/law/financial-services-law.
[14] “Deloitte Legal | Deloitte.” Accessed December 10, 2024. https://www.deloitte.com/na/en/services/legal.html.
[15] PricewaterhouseCoopers. “Legal Business Solutions.” PwC. Accessed December 10, 2024. https://www.pwc.com/gx/en/services/legal-business-solutions.html.
[16] “The Major Trends in the Legal Market – Liberalisation – Executive School of Management, Technology and Law (ES-HSG).” Accessed December 10, 2024. https://es.unisg.ch/en/blog/the-major-trends-in-the-legal-market-liberalisation/.
[17] Model Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 5.4: Professional Independence of a Lawyer https://www.americanbar.org/groups/professional_responsibility/publications/model_rules_of_professional_conduct/rule_5_4_professional_independence_of_a_lawyer/.
[18] Megan E. Vetula, “From the Big Four to Big Law: The Swiss Verein and the Global Law Firm,” Georgetown Journal of Legal Ethics 22, no. 3 (Summer 2009): 1180
[19] Scale LLP. “It’s Time to Scrap Rule 5.4 (and Allow Outside Investment in Law Firms).” Accessed December 10, 2024. https://www.scalefirm.com/post/allow-outside-investment-in-law-firms.
[20] Jacoby, Conrad. “Practice Innovations: Non-Lawyer Ownership of Law Firms — Are Winds of Change Coming for Rule 5.4?” Thomson Reuters Institute, March 29, 2022. https://www.thomsonreuters.com/en-us/posts/legal/practice-innovations-april-2022-non-lawyer-ownership/.
[21] Moran, Lyle. “Utah Embraces Nonlawyer Ownership of Law Firms as Part of Broad Access-to-Justice Reforms.” ABA Journal, August 14, 2020. https://www.abajournal.com/web/article/utah-embraces-nonlawyer-ownership-of-law-firms-as-part-of-broad-reforms.
[22] “Enter the Sandbox.” Harvard Law School Center on the Legal Profession, January 2021. https://clp.law.harvard.edu/article/enter-the-sandbox/.
[23] “Utah Office of Legal Services Innovation – An Office of the Utah Supreme Court.” Accessed December 10, 2024. https://utahinnovationoffice.org/.
[24] Moran, Lyle. “Arizona Approves Nonlawyer Ownership, Nonlawyer Licensees in Access-to-Justice Reforms.” ABA Journal, August 28, 2020. https://www.abajournal.com/web/article/arizona-approves-alternative-business-structures-as-part-of-access-to-justice-reforms.
[25] Greene, Jenna. “Arizona and Utah Lead the Way on Legal Industry Change.” Reuters, October 3, 2022, sec. Legal Industry. https://www.reuters.com/legal/legalindustry/arizona-utah-lead-way-legal-industry-change-2022-10-03/.
[26] Goss, Louis. “Big Four: EY, Deloitte, KPMG, and PwC Step on Law Firms’ Toes Increasing Legal Revenue to £1.25bn.” City AM, February 15, 2023. https://www.cityam.com/big-four-ey-deloitte-kpmg-and-pwc-step-on-law-firms-toes-ramping-up-legal-revenue-to-1-25bn/.
[27] Epstein Becker Green. “Deloitte Legal Alliance,” September 7, 2022. https://www.ebglaw.com/strategic-alliances/deloitte-legal.
[28] Ogletree Deakins. “Ogletree Deakins and KPMG Law Join Forces in a New Alliance,” May 10, 2021. https://ogletree.com/media-center/press-releases/2021-05-10/ogletree-deakins-and-kpmg-law-join-forces-in-a-new-alliance/.
[29] Fragomen – Immigration attorneys, solicitors, and consultants worldwide – Fragomen and PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP Announce Strategic Alliance. “Fragomen – A World of Difference in Immigration – Immigration Attorneys, Solicitors, and Consultants Worldwide.” Accessed December 10, 2024. https://www.fragomen.com/insights/fragomen-and-pricewaterhousecoopers-llp-announce-strategic-alliance.html.
[30] Adams, Arlene, Christina Blacklaws, Chris Fowler, and Chris Grant. “Liberalisation: Reflections on the Future of Legal Service Delivery,” November 1, 2022. https://obelisksupport.com/thinking/reports/liberalisation-reflections-on-the-future-of-legal-service-delivery-report/.
[31] Wilkins, David B., and Maria J. Esteban Ferrer. “The Integration of Law into Global Business Solutions: The Rise, Transformation, and Potential Future of the Big Four Accountancy Networks in the Global Legal Services Market.” Law & Social Inquiry 43, no. 3 (2018): 981–1026. https://www.jstor.org/stable/26631021. p. 984-986
[32] Evans, Joseph. “Deloitte Becomes Last of Big Four to Receive ABS Licence in Move into Legal Services.” Law.com International, June 18, 2018. https://www.law.com/international-edition/2018/06/22/deloitte-becomes-last-of-big-four-to-receive-abs-licence-in-legal-services-push/.
[33] Dam, Ranajit. “Innovative & Disruption: The Big Four’s Expanded Services Rock the Global Legal Landscape & What Can the Asia Pacific Region Expect.” April 23, 2019. https://www.worldservicesgroup.com/files/presentations/1146/WSG_2019_AP_Big4_in_Asia_Pacific.pdf.
[34] Love, Bruce. “EY Sets Sights on Growing Legal Services Market Share Post-Split.” The American Lawyer, October 31, 2022. https://www.law.com/americanlawyer/2022/10/31/ey-sets-sights-on-growing-legal-services-market-share-post-split-405-112171/.
[35] Rose, Neil. “Big Four ‘Cornering the Market for Legal Solutions, Not Advice.’” Legal Futures, September 2, 2021. https://www.legalfutures.co.uk/latest-news/big-four-cornering-the-market-for-legal-solutions-not-advice.
[36] Jim Leason, “Law Firms, ALSPs and the Big Four: Frenemies or Business Partners?,” Solicitors’ Journal 164, no. 4 (April 2021): 32-35 https://heinonline-org.proxy.library.cornell.edu/HOL/P?h=hein.journals/solicjo197&i=259.
[37] Packel, Dan. “Independent Firms, Not Big Law, Should Fear Big Four the Most, Report Says.” The American Lawyer, July 17, 2018. https://www.law.com/americanlawyer/2018/07/17/independent-firms-not-big-law-should-fear-big-four-the-most-report-says/.
[38] Pritchard, Becky. “You’ve Been Thinking About The Big Four All Wrong.” Law.com International, January 18, 2022. https://www.law.com/international-edition/2022/01/18/youve-been-thinking-about-the-big-four-all-wrong/.
[39] Love, Bruce. “Audits Woes Won’t Stop Big 4 From Taking Big Law Business From Law Firms.” The American Lawyer, April 6, 2022. https://www.law.com/americanlawyer/2022/04/06/audits-woes-wont-stop-big-4-from-taking-big-law-business-from-law-firms/.
[40] Wilkins, David B., and Maria J. Esteban Ferrer. “The Integration of Law into Global Business Solutions: The Rise, Transformation, and Potential Future of the Big Four Accountancy Networks in the Global Legal Services Market.” Law & Social Inquiry 43, no. 3 (2018): 981–1026. http://www.jstor.org/stable/26631021. p. 983
[41] Wilkins, David B., and Maria J. Esteban Ferrer. “The Integration of Law into Global Business Solutions: The Rise, Transformation, and Potential Future of the Big Four Accountancy Networks in the Global Legal Services Market.” Law & Social Inquiry 43, no. 3 (2018): 981–1026. http://www.jstor.org/stable/26631021. p. 1000
[42] Hollard Barnard, Katherine. “The Triple Threat Facing Generalist Law Firms, Part 3: The Big Four.” Legal Marketing Agency, March 1, 2021. https://firesignmarketing.com/the-triple-threat-facing-generalist-law-firms-part-3-the-big-four/.
[43] Love, Bruce. “Audits Woes Won’t Stop Big 4 From Taking Big Law Business From Law Firms.” The American Lawyer, April 6, 2022. https://www.law.com/americanlawyer/2022/04/06/audits-woes-wont-stop-big-4-from-taking-big-law-business-from-law-firms/.
[44] Jim Leason, “Law Firms, ALSPs and the Big Four: Frenemies or Business Partners?,” Solicitors’ Journal 164, no. 4 (April 2021): 32-35 https://heinonline-org.proxy.library.cornell.edu/HOL/P?h=hein.journals/solicjo197&i=259.
[45] “Deloitte Reports FY2024 Revenue | Deloitte Global.” Accessed December 10, 2024. https://www.deloitte.com/global/en/about/press-room/global-revenue-announcement.html.
[46] The American Lawyer. “The 2024 Am Law 100: Ranked by Gross Revenue.” Accessed December 10, 2024. https://www.law.com/americanlawyer/2024/04/16/the-2024-am-law-100-ranked-by-gross-revenue/.
[47] Sivaraman, Shwetha. “Talent and Tech: How the Big Four Are Shaking Up Big Law.” The Student Lawyer (blog), October 29, 2022. https://thestudentlawyer.com/2022/10/29/talent-and-tech-how-the-big-four-are-shaking-up-big-law/.
[48] Bourveau, Thomas, Derrald Stice, Han Stice, and Roger White. 2024. “H-1B Visas and Wages in Accounting: Evidence from Big 4 Payroll and the Ethics of H-1B Visas.” Journal of Business Ethics, September, 1–22. doi:10.1007/s10551-024-05823-8.
[49] Wilkins, David B., and Maria J. Esteban Ferrer. “The Integration of Law into Global Business Solutions: The Rise, Transformation, and Potential Future of the Big Four Accountancy Networks in the Global Legal Services Market.” Law & Social Inquiry 43, no. 3 (2018): 981–1026. http://www.jstor.org/stable/26631021. p. 1006
[50] Loxton, Liz. “How the Big Four Have Returned to Consulting with a Bang.” Accountancy Age, September 27, 2015. https://www.accountancyage.com/2015/09/27/how-the-big-four-have-returned-to-consulting-with-a-bang/.
[51] RunSensible. “Non-Lawyer Ownership of Law Firms: Exploring the Legal Boundaries – RunSensible,” October 1, 2024. https://www.runsensible.com/blog/non-lawyer-ownership-of-law-firms/.
[52] RunSensible. “Non-Lawyer Ownership of Law Firms: Exploring the Legal Boundaries,” October 1, 2024. https://www.runsensible.com/blog/non-lawyer-ownership-of-law-firms/.
[53] SenGupta, Reena. “Law Firms Face Disruption from More Directions.” Financial Times, September 13, 2024, sec. Legal services. https://www.ft.com/content/6cc103ec-b6ed-4145-84f9-cae0c9682098.
[54] PricewaterhouseCoopers. “PwC Announces Strategic Alliance with Harvey, Positioning PwC’s Legal Business Solutions at the Forefront of Legal Generative AI.” PwC. Accessed December 10, 2024. https://www.pwc.com/gx/en/news-room/press-releases/2023/pwc-announces-strategic-alliance-with-harvey-positioning-pwcs-legal-business-solutions-at-the-forefront-of-legal-generative-ai.html.
[55] Cooper, Kris. “How the Big Four Partnered with Tech Firms in 2023.” The Accountant(blog), December 21, 2023. https://www.theaccountant-online.com/news/how-the-big-four-partnered-with-tech-firms-in-2023/.
[56] Pardo, Santiago Bedoya. “KPMG UK Announces Major Alliance Expansion with Google Cloud.” The Accountant (blog), February 10, 2023. https://www.theaccountant-online.com/news/kpmg-uk-announces-major-alliance-expansion-with-google-cloud/.
[57] Jolly, David. “Deloitte Rolls Out AI Tool for Handling Legal Documents.” Bloomberg Law News, January 23, 2024. https://news.bloomberglaw.com/artificial-intelligence/deloitte-rolls-out-ai-tool-for-handling-legal-documents.
[58] EY. “EY Announces Alliance with Reveal to Offer Clients AI-Powered Solutions to Advance Data Discovery and Compliance Needs,” January 28, 2024. https://www.ey.com/en_us/newsroom/2024/01/ey-announces-alliance-with-reveal-to-offer-clients-ai-powered-solutions-to-advance-data-discovery-and-compliance-needs.
