Law firms can have either, and which one depends almost entirely on size. The traditional and still most common answer to whether law firms have CEOs or managing partners is the managing partner: a practicing lawyer elected by fellow partners to run the business while keeping at least some client work. The CEO title has gained ground at the largest firms, where revenues reach into the billions and the job of running the place has outgrown what any part-time leader can handle.
What a Managing Partner Does
At most firms, the managing partner is the closest thing to a chief executive. The role covers financial oversight, hiring, long-term strategy, and keeping the partnership informed about how the firm is performing. The managing partner reports to the other partners, usually through an executive committee, and typically continues to carry a reduced caseload alongside the management work.
Selection and tenure vary. Many firms use a three-year term, filled by a formal election among equity partners. Some impose term limits to rotate leadership. Others leave an effective managing partner in place indefinitely. At some firms the election is real; at others, a small group of dominant partners effectively picks the leader.
Compensation tries to account for the billable hours a managing partner gives up. The most straightforward approach is a fixed monthly stipend on top of the normal profit share. Some firms credit the managing partner with 20 to 40 billable-equivalent hours a month so the compensation formula doesn’t penalize time spent in management meetings. Others add a few percentage points to the managing partner’s equity share for the length of their service. Formula-driven firms tend toward the hours credit; firms that divide profits by equity percentage lean toward bonus points.
The Executive Committee
At most mid-size and large firms, the managing partner doesn’t act alone. An executive committee of three to seven partners sets policy, approves budgets, and reviews firm performance. Members usually serve staggered two- to three-year terms so the firm doesn’t lose all its institutional memory at once. The committee meets frequently and the managing partner carries out its decisions day to day. If revenue targets slip or the partnership loses confidence in the leader, the committee or the full partnership can vote the managing partner out before the term is up.
When Firms Use the CEO Title
The CEO title has taken hold at large, international firms whose operational demands rival any Fortune 500 company. In the most recent Am Law 100 ranking, 58 firms topped $1 billion in gross revenue, and Kirkland & Ellis generated close to $9 billion. Running an organization that size while also practicing law is impractical, and the title change reflects that.
Firms that use the CEO label generally fall into one of two patterns.
The lawyer-CEO is a partner who has stepped away from practicing entirely to run the firm full-time. They bring credibility with the partnership because they’ve done the work, but they put all their energy into strategy, operations, and market positioning instead of client matters. Norton Rose Fulbright, for example, operates under a Global Chief Executive model rather than a traditional managing partner structure.
The professional CEO is a seasoned business executive, often without a law degree, hired to manage the firm’s non-legal operations. These leaders focus on financial performance, technology, human resources, and growth. They bring corporate discipline to organizations that have historically run on handshake agreements and partner intuition. Hiring a non-lawyer for this role creates ethical complications under the rules governing law firm ownership, which is why such executives typically hold no equity and have no authority over how cases are handled.
Why Most Firms Can’t Just Hire a Corporate CEO
ABA Model Rule 5.4 is the reason the CEO question isn’t a simple one. The rule prohibits lawyers from sharing legal fees with non-lawyers and bars non-lawyers from holding ownership interests in a law firm or directing a lawyer’s professional judgment.1American Bar Association. Rule 5.4: Professional Independence of a Lawyer Most states have adopted some version of the rule, and violating it can lead to discipline against the firm’s lawyers, up to and including suspension.
The rule carves out an exception that makes non-lawyer executive roles workable. A firm can include non-lawyer employees in a compensation or retirement plan based on profit-sharing, as long as the arrangement is structured as employee compensation rather than a direct split of legal fees.1American Bar Association. Rule 5.4: Professional Independence of a Lawyer So a non-lawyer COO or CFO can draw a salary, performance bonuses, and retirement benefits tied to overall firm profitability. What they cannot have is a direct percentage of fees from specific matters or an equity stake that would make them an owner.
Other Executive Roles at Large Firms
At major firms, the CEO or managing partner isn’t the only executive title in the building. The C-suite has grown as firms have grown.
- Chief Operating Officer oversees day-to-day operations including facilities, vendor management, administrative support, and process improvement. At some firms the COO is the highest-ranking non-lawyer.
- Chief Financial Officer manages financial reporting, profitability analysis, partner compensation modeling, and retirement plan administration, and tracks metrics like realization rates that measure how much of the time lawyers work actually gets billed after write-offs and discounts.
- Chief Marketing Officer leads business development, brand strategy, and client relationship programs. At firms competing for major corporate work, marketing has become a serious budget line.
- Chief Technology Officer or Chief Information Officer manages technology infrastructure, cybersecurity, and increasingly the artificial intelligence tools used in legal research and document review.
These positions are almost always filled by non-lawyers, so Rule 5.4 applies to each of them. They lead their departments but cannot direct legal strategy or hold ownership stakes in the firm in most states.
States Where the Rules Are Different
A few jurisdictions have broken from the standard Rule 5.4 framework, which changes who can lead and own a firm within their borders.
Arizona eliminated its version of Rule 5.4 in 2021 and created an Alternative Business Structure program that explicitly permits non-lawyers to hold economic interests and decision-making authority in firms providing legal services.2New York Codes, Rules and Regulations. Section 7-209: Alternative Business Structures More than 130 entities had been approved as of early 2025. In February 2025, the Arizona Supreme Court authorized KPMG Law US to operate as an ABS, making one of the world’s largest accounting firms a provider of legal services.3Arizona Courts. Arizona Supreme Court Authorizes KPMG ABS Certification Licensed ABS entities must undergo audits twice a year and meet conditions designed to protect client confidentiality.
Utah took a different route in 2020, setting up a regulatory sandbox through its Supreme Court that allows non-traditional legal service providers to operate under direct judicial oversight.4Utah Courts. Utah Supreme Court Standing Order No. 15 Participants can test models that would otherwise violate the Rules of Professional Conduct, with the court watching outcomes to decide whether to make permanent changes. Washington, D.C. has permitted limited non-lawyer ownership since 1991 under an exception to its version of Rule 5.4, and Puerto Rico adopted rules in 2025 allowing non-lawyers to own up to 49% of a law firm.
What This Tells You When Hiring a Firm
Leadership structure gives you a sense of how a firm operates. A firm run by a managing partner with an active caseload is making decisions through a different lens than one led by a full-time CEO with a corporate background. Neither model is inherently better, but they produce different cultures. Partner-led firms tend to prioritize lawyer autonomy and client relationships. CEO-led firms tend to prioritize consistency, efficiency, and scalable processes.
If you’re evaluating firms, ask who runs the business side and how decisions get made. A firm where the managing partner also carries a full client load may be stretched thin on management. A firm with a dedicated CEO and a full C-suite has invested heavily in infrastructure, which often means higher overhead but more sophisticated project management and technology. The leadership model won’t tell you whether the lawyers are good. It will tell you what the firm values.