Why Dudley DeBosier Chose the MSO Model Over ABS

In this blog, Chad Dudley, founder of Dudley DeBosier Injury Lawyers, shares how his firm structured its private equity transaction and why it ultimately chose the MSO model over an Alternative Business Structure (ABS).

As private equity and outside investment continue to generate discussion across the legal industry, firm owners are seeking a clearer understanding of how these transactions are being structured in practice. While no single model is right for every firm, studying how one firm approached these decisions can help leaders better evaluate the options available in a changing marketplace.

Watch the video to hear Chad Dudley explain the structure his firm created and the reasoning behind its decision to pursue the Management Services Organization (MSO) model.

What You’ll Learn

• How the MSO and ABS models differ
• Why Dudley DeBosier chose the MSO structure
• How the firm organized ownership and operations following the transaction
• What operational benefits Chad believes the structure creates

Understanding the Difference Between the MSO and ABS Models

One of the first questions many law firm leaders ask when evaluating outside investment is how different ownership structures work.

During a discussion with Chad Dudley, Ari Kornhaber, founder, EVP and head of corporate development at Esquire Bank, explained the distinction between the ABS and MSO approaches.

“When you go the ABS model, you may have a non-attorney owner of the law firm,” Ari noted. “What [Dudley DeBosier] accomplished together is creating an opportunity for non-attorney investment, but not in the law firm, in the operations, so you don’t even get close to crossing the line when it comes to ethics.”

With the MSO model, the law firm remains entirely attorney-owned. Non-attorney capital goes into a separate services entity that supports the firm’s operations.

That distinction is important because the two structures address ownership and operations differently. Understanding those differences provides context for why firms pursuing outside investment may arrive at different conclusions based on their objectives, jurisdiction, and long-term strategy.

Why Dudley DeBosier Chose the MSO Model

For Chad and his partners at Dudley DeBosier, the decision was the result of evaluating multiple approaches and determining which structure best aligned with their goals.

“We shied away from the ABS model because of some issues that other states had with it. We wanted to create [an] MSO rather than a firm-to-firm transaction because we believe that there’s more options with that structure down the road,” Chad explained.

Rather than viewing the decision as a statement about what every firm should do, Chad presented it as the path his firm believed made the most sense for its specific circumstances.

He also emphasized transparency throughout the process. “We’re not the first, but we’re one of the early adopters, and maybe we weren’t shy about it when we completed the transaction. We said, [this] is what we’re doing, we’re doing it right, and we’re [going to] tell people exactly where the market’s going and what’s happening.”

How the Dudley DeBosier Structure Works

Chad also provided a detailed overview of how the transaction was ultimately structured.

“I have two partners, Steven DeBosier and James Pilche, and we are still 100% owners of the law firm proper, and all the attorneys that work for us are employed by the law firm.”

He explained that Dudley DeBosier formed an MSO with a private equity firm. According to Chad, the MSO houses the firm’s non-attorney team members, intellectual property, and other operational assets while providing services to the law firm itself.

As he described it: “The law firm [does] what it decides to do, but the back office part, the part that’s supporting the attorneys that are delivering those services, can be owned by non-attorneys, because it’s a services entity.”

For firm leaders seeking to understand how these arrangements work in practice, Chad’s discussion provides a useful case study of his firm’s approach.

The Operational Advantages Chad Sees in the Structure

Beyond ownership considerations, Chad discussed the operational opportunities he believes the MSO structure can create when multiple firms participate within the same platform.

“Where the influx of capital really comes into play is that, if you have 10 firms [now] looking to invest in AI, invest in other technologies, invest in other tools, doing it at scale makes sense.”

He noted that shared investment can potentially make larger technology initiatives and operational projects more accessible than they might be for firms acting independently.

“Now you’re part of a collective that has access to resources in terms of marketing strategies…and just the resources that you have behind the scenes is incredible.”

Whether those benefits align with a firm’s objectives will vary by organization. However, understanding the rationale behind these decisions provides valuable context as law firm leaders evaluate how the industry is evolving.

As discussions continue around private equity, alternative ownership structures, and operational scale across the legal industry, understanding how these models function in practice is becoming increasingly important.

For plaintiffs law firm leaders, the value lies not in reaching a predetermined conclusion, but in gaining the knowledge necessary to evaluate opportunities, risks, and strategic options with greater clarity.

Watch the full video to hear Chad explain why Dudley DeBosier chose the MSO model and how the structure was designed to support the firm’s long-term goals.