Law Firm Partners Give Up Pay to Bring Private Equity Into the Back Office
The legal profession’s most revealing experiments with outside capital may begin not with a giant merger, but with partners agreeing to take home less. Massumi + Consoli, a Los Angeles-founded transactions firm, has created ElevenHundred+, a management services company backed by private equity. Announced on September 24, the arrangement separates the people giving legal advice from the business infrastructure supporting them. It also poses an unusually direct question for midsize firms: what is a partner willing to surrender today for a stake in tomorrow’s operating platform?
The Price of a Different Structure
Founded in 2015 by Peter Massumi and Anthony Consoli, both formerly of Kirkland & Ellis, the firm advises private-equity sponsors on middle-market transactions. The Financial Times reported that it has grown beyond 70 lawyers and generates more than $100 million in annual gross revenue. That makes it an instructive case: established enough to have substantial technology and recruitment needs, but small enough for its owners to act without securing hundreds of votes.
The investor is Dallas-based Trive Capital, which acquired a stake in the separated business operations, rather than the law practice. The firm’s announcement describes ElevenHundred+ as "not a law firm and does not provide legal services," and says the outside sponsor has no authority over clients, attorney compensation or professional judgment. Its service fees, the announcement adds, are not tied to the practice’s legal revenues or profits.
The financing nevertheless has an immediate cost. Bloomberg Law reported that some partners agreed to a one-time reduction in their equity distributions to purchase interests in the new entity. The size of those contributions and the transaction’s valuation were not disclosed. Future appreciation, rather than a guaranteed salary increase, is the inducement.
The Partner Who Arrived
Alongside the structural change, the firm recruited Shon Glusky from Sheppard as a New York partner and chief strategy officer. He previously held firmwide leadership and lateral-recruitment responsibilities. His appointment suggests that outside capital is not merely intended to replace administrative systems; it is meant to support a more ambitious contest for experienced lawyers.
That contest is ultimately about clients. A prominent lateral may bring relationships and market credibility, but institutional clients do not automatically follow a lawyer into a new partnership. Conflicts, engagement terms, billing expectations and the breadth of the receiving team all matter. For private-equity sponsors especially, one established partner may open a door, while sufficient execution capacity determines whether recurring deal work stays.
Investor-backed infrastructure could make onboarding a team less disruptive, though it also introduces questions about data access, vendor dependence and the financial interests of the services company. None disappears merely because the legal practice remains attorney-owned.
The Calculation for Smaller Firms
For founders overseeing 20 to 60 lawyers, the attraction is understandable. Traditional boutiques can operate with comparatively lean overhead, but they often lack the capital to build sophisticated knowledge systems or recruit across multiple offices. BigLaw can absorb those expenses, while carrying larger administrative structures and higher compensation demands. A well-financed midsize firm could occupy the space between them, combining senior attention with a broader platform than a narrowly focused boutique.
There is a price for that possibility. Management fees replace some internal overhead; the business must still deliver measurable savings or new revenue. Partners exchanging current distributions for illiquid equity assume valuation, governance and exit risks. Firms considering the model need to measure not only technology costs, but client concentration, portable revenue, profit allocation and the consequences if growth stalls.
Massumi + Consoli’s experiment will be judged less by its financing announcement than by whether Glusky’s recruitment is followed by durable client relationships and more efficient deal execution. For smaller firms watching, the question is not simply whether outside capital is available. It is whether independence can survive the bargain.
