| Matter 01 · The Memo · Opinion |
2 min |
What Can a Law Firm Actually Sell?
By The Billable Moments Desk
Weil Gotshal's management recommended an orderly wind-down in late October, and its partners had already started leaving. Within about seven weeks of Michael Aiello's September move to Cravath, groups were heading to Kirkland, Gibson Dunn and Latham. What stayed behind now has interested buyers. The cited reports describe offers and expressions of interest, not an announced completed transaction. My read: these AI investments are a bet on keeping reusable know-how in the partnership when partners leave. The interest in Weil's assets makes the question concrete: which parts belong to the firm, and which depend on client information or continuing licenses? On either side of a know-how sale, the hard part is likely separating what the firm built from what clients paid for. Buyers and builders want the same thing. Vetta submitted an offer for selected institutional know-how and technology assets, excluding client files and data, per Reuters. Scissero submitted an expression of interest in certain technology and intellectual-property assets, including Weil's DealVision 360. Per Bloomberg Law, Crosby's terms aren't specific until it evaluates Weil's data. A&O Shearman committed $1.1bn over five years, mostly in practice time, with each practice devoting at least 3% of its time to specialist AI tools. Kirkland is taking Ramona Nee's 40-lawyer group from Weil in January. It also plans to invest $500m over three to four years in its own platform. The best counterargument is that profit holds partners and tools don't. David Lat argues slower-growing firms find "falling behind in profitability makes them less attractive to their top partners," and Weil's own tools didn't stop more than 30 partners leaving this year. The software also looks interchangeable. Everlaw's connectors to Harvey and Legora are free, per LawSites. And per Law.com, client confidentiality could obstruct a sale of firm data. I think that narrows the thesis without sinking it. The part a firm can own is practice know-how. A&O reportedly weights reusable team assets differently from personal productivity in bonuses, which reads as paying partners to build it. For firm management, the question is what the partnership agreement treats as firm property when partners withdraw or the firm winds down. On either side of a know-how sale, the hard part is likely separating what the firm built from what clients paid for. Scissero stresses that it isn't seeking "unrestricted access to confidential client information," which I read as a preview of where that line will be argued.
| Time entry · what it means for you |
| Big Law | Watch whether A&O's 3% practice-time commitment shows up in its next annual figure for profit per equity partner, which was $2.9m for the year to April 2026. | | In-house | Ask outside counsel what their engagement terms say happens to precedents and tools built on your matters if the firm dissolves or sells assets. | | Next | Watch Dec 31, when Weil will deem any remaining equity partners withdrawn per Bloomberg Law, and then whether any sale of Weil's know-how closes and on what client-consent terms. |
|
| 