KPMG is positioning itself at the forefront of a potential shift in legal service provision within the US through technology and strategic positioning of accounting’s Big Four firms. Stuart Bedford, KPMG’s global head of legal services, has shared insights suggesting that the extensive technological capabilities harnessed by these massive accounting firms will lead US corporations to favor them for large-scale legal work. This trend has the potential to create shifts in the traditional legal landscape, with law firms finding themselves edged out in specific types of services.
KPMG is eyeing a pioneering move by seeking approval for a legal services venture in Arizona, a state currently experimenting with frameworks that allow non-attorney ownership of law firms. The firm’s application, which has garnered recommendation from Arizona’s alternative business structure committee, remains under review by the state’s supreme court. Bedford projects that KPMG—and possibly other Big Four firms—will play a complementary yet potentially disruptive role to traditional law firms. This could involve handling the intricate post-merger integration tasks that require significant data analysis and contract management capabilities. More details about this venture can be accessed through the panel’s recommendation.
The Big Four’s edge lies in the technology and scale that large consultancies can offer, especially for routine legal work that necessitates significant data extraction from unstructured documents. This technological prowess is underscored by David Wilkins of Harvard Law School, who describes the relationship between these accounting giants and Big Law firms as “coopetition.” This unique synergy allows Big Four firms to undertake vast post-merger integration tasks that law firms might find challenging due to resource constraints and differing business models.
An added competitive advantage for accounting firms like KPMG is their financial model, which allows for reinvestment in technology—a liberty that traditional law firms, dictated by partnership structures, might not enjoy. As Bedford notes, this capability enables them to offer “better products” for specific legal tasks compared to those provided by law firms. Further insights into KPMG’s strategic moves in the US can be reviewed in the full conversation cited on Bloomberg Law.
Despite the forecasted changes, traditional law firms will likely maintain their hold in specialized services that demand a high level of expertise, such as the closing of high-value mergers and acquisitions. By collaborating on complex tasks—where, for example, Big Law firms manage deal closings and Big Four firms offer exhaustive reorganization advice—these entities could continue to co-exist productively, each capitalizing on their domains of expertise.