Outside money moving into professional services is not new. We have already watched this happen in health care, accounting, engineering, construction, and other industries that used to be made up mostly of local firms, founder-owned businesses, employee-owned companies, and professional partnerships.
The playbook is familiar: Find a fragmented industry, buy strong regional or specialty firms, combine them into a larger platform, add services, expand geographically, invest in technology, and look for operational efficiencies. That same playbook is now showing up more clearly in the insurance and claims world.
Capital Moves Deeper Into the Claims Ecosystem
Most of the conversations around private equity in insurance have focused on brokerages. That makes sense because that is where a lot of the visible consolidation has taken place—insurance distribution has been consolidating for years. Investors like brokerage businesses because they tend to have recurring revenue, strong client retention, and plenty of room to grow by acquisition. Large platforms have repeatedly bought regional and specialty agencies, creating much larger distribution networks than existed a generation ago.
Those same investment themes also exist in claims. TPAs, independent adjusting firms, forensic consultants, managed repair networks, and other claim support providers are often fragmented, regional, specialized, and founder-led. In other words, they are exactly the type of businesses investors often view as candidates for consolidation.
That is why claims services may be the next logical place for this trend to accelerate. Once investors move beyond distribution, the organizations involved in claims handling, investigation, administration, engineering, forensic analysis, and loss resolution become obvious targets. They serve a necessary function, they are tied directly to claims activity, and many can be combined with other related service lines under a broader platform.
The investment activity is not limited to vendors sitting outside the insurance company. Private equity and other institutional investors have also put capital directly into insurance businesses and insurance-adjacent platforms. The attraction is not hard to understand: Insurance can offer recurring relationships, predictable revenue, data-rich operations, and opportunities to improve efficiency through scale and technology. Combine this with rising claim costs due to inflation and increasing severity, and the potential for significant opportunities at scale with the implementation of AI workflows, and you have the makings of an attractive target for outside capital.
For claims professionals, the practical takeaway is simple: The ownership structure behind a company may not be as obvious as the name on the report, invoice, estimate, or engagement letter. A carrier, broker, TPA, independent adjuster, engineering consultant, specialty vendor, or managed repair provider may still look local or familiar while operating as part of a much larger investmentbacked platform.
Legal Services: Capital Finds a Way in
Law firms have always been a little different from other professional-service businesses. The reason is simple: In most places, non-lawyers cannot own law firms or share in legal fees in the same way outside investors can participate in other industries.
That restriction is reflected in the American Bar Association’s Model Rule 5.4, which generally limits fee sharing and ownership interests by non-lawyers. In practical terms, that has made direct private equity ownership of law firms difficult in most jurisdictions.
But that does not mean capital has ignored the legal sector. Far from it. Legal services have many of the same traits investors like in other professionalservice industries: steady demand, strong cash flow, limited capital needs, and a very fragmented market. Instead of always investing directly in the law firm itself, investors are finding other ways into the business around the practice of law. That includes managementservice organizations, legal technology companies, litigation finance, backoffice platforms, and other lawadjacent businesses.
In addition, regulatory models in places like Arizona and Utah allow for alternative structures that have created more room for nontraditional ownership and investment. Arizona’s Alternative Business Structure program and Utah’s regulatory sandbox have become closely watched examples of regulatory experimentation, creating new pathways for outside capital and operational innovation within legal services. Their significance extends beyond the legal profession itself, providing a glimpse into how ownership, investment, and service delivery models may continue to evolve across industries that intersect with claims, dispute resolution, and litigation.
This issue became much more visible in 2026 when Morgan & Morgan reportedly engaged JPMorgan to explore a minority stake sale valued at more than $1 billion. Although noteworthy because of scale, this would not be the first entry of private equity in law firms. Trive Capital’s investment in Massumi + Consoli and Uplift Investors’ formation of Orion Legal with Dudley DeBosier Injury Lawyers are recent examples, both following the management service organization (MSO) playbook borrowed from health care.
The MSO, unlike a law firm itself in most jurisdictions, can accept outside investment, opening the door to separating licensed professionals, insulating ethical concerns, and the entrance of outside capital where it once seemed impossible. The important point is not just that a large plaintiffs’ firm was looking at outside capital. It is also that the structures being considered, and routinely used in health care, were designed to bring in investment while still working around existing ownership rules.
The conversation on outside funding is incomplete without mentioning thirdparty litigation funding (TPLF). A 2021 Swiss Re Institute report estimated that more than half of the $17 billion in global TPLF was deployed in the U.S. The legal landscape is rushing to respond to the influx of outside capital in litigation. Numerous states have passed laws requiring disclosure, at some level, of outside funders’ identities and financial interests. Similarly, a bill titled the “Litigation Funding Transparency Act” (S.3826) was introduced in February 2026 in an effort to require disclosure of outside litigation funding at the federal level.
The rush to regulate is not without good reason: According to the American Property Casualty Insurance Association (APCIA), TPLF could cost the industry up to $50 billion in direct and indirect costs. Where the insurers see cost, outside capital sees opportunity.
For readers in the claims and litigation industries, the significance extends beyond a single law firm transaction or investments in litigation at large. It demonstrates that the same forces driving consolidation among carriers, brokers, TPAs, expert firms, and contractors are increasingly reaching the legal profession as well. As capital searches for opportunities across the broader dispute-resolution process, the traditional boundaries between professional services, operational support, and investment-backed business platforms are becoming increasingly blurred. This is not simply a legal story; it is part of a larger transformation occurring across the organizations that participate in claims, litigation, and construction-related disputes.
The legal industry is still heavily regulated, and the rules are not the same everywhere, but the broader direction is clear: Capital is finding paths into legal services through business operations, legal-adjacent services, finance structures, technology platforms, and jurisdictions that allow alternative ownership models.
Forensic Consulting Firms
Forensic consulting firms, which support the claims and litigation field on a daily basis, fit squarely into this same discussion. These businesses are built around specialized knowledge, professional credibility, and longstanding client relationships. That includes expert witnesses, engineering firms, specialty consultants, building consultants, valuation experts, and other technical professionals who are regularly retained in claims investigations, insurance disputes, litigation, arbitration, and other matters requiring specialized expertise.
Many of these firms are also exactly the type of businesses that attract investor attention. They are often founderled, regional, discipline-specific, and dependent on a relatively small group of senior professionals. That can make them highly successful businesses, but it also makes them natural candidates for larger platforms seeking to add capabilities, expand geographically, recruit talent, diversify service offerings, or build a broader national footprint.
This is not simply a theoretical trend. In 2021, Donan, a forensic engineering and investigation firm, combined with CCG IQ, a claims-intelligence company whose brands included HVACi and StrikeCheck, with backing from New Mountain Capital. The transaction led to the creation of Alpine Intel, a larger platform serving insurers, law firms, and corporations across the property-claims process. More recently, firms across the broader consulting and expert-services landscape have continued to expand through acquisitions intended to add new disciplines, deepen technical expertise, and broaden geographic coverage.
Nor is this unique to forensic consulting. Accounting, health care services, engineering, and other professional-service industries have experienced significant consolidation over the past decade as investors pursued scale, recurring client relationships, and opportunities for growth through acquisition. Expert firms tied to claims and litigation are increasingly part of that same broader trend.
For claims professionals, the practical result is the growth of larger expert-service platforms. One organization may now offer engineering, environmental consulting, fire origin and cause investigations, HVAC evaluations, equipment assessments, accident reconstruction, forensic accounting, building consulting, eDiscovery, delay analysis, construction consulting, and other specialized services through related companies, operating divisions, or affiliated businesses. Transactions such as the formation of Alpine Intel illustrate how firms are assembling broader multidisciplinary capabilities under a single corporate structure.
That does not change the fundamental requirement that an expert opinion must stand on the qualifications, methodology, and credibility of the individual expert offering it. What it can change is the business environment in which those services are delivered. Consolidation may influence how firms market their capabilities, deploy resources, recruit and retain experts, expand into new regions, manage administrative functions, and compete for national accounts. As larger platforms continue to emerge, claims professionals are increasingly interacting not just with individual experts or local firms, but also with organizations that bring together multiple disciplines and service lines under a common ownership structure.
Construction: The Roll-Up Strategy Arrives
A parallel consolidation trend is occurring across construction and contractor services and serves as a perfect example for this discussion.
Construction remains one of the most fragmented industries in the U.S. Construction Dive reports that more than 630,000 privately owned construction companies operate throughout the country, creating significant opportunities for acquisition-driven growth strategies.
Private equity firms have increasingly targeted contractors, specialty trades, and construction-service providers as platform investments. Rather than building entirely new operations, investors often acquire established local companies and then expand through additional acquisitions. HVAC contractors, electrical contractors, plumbing firms, roofing companies, and other specialty trades have become frequent components of these growth strategies.
Liberty Mutual identified contractor consolidation as an active private equity strategy, including situations in which investors pursue repeated acquisitions to build larger regional or national organizations. The objective is straightforward: acquire proven businesses with established workforces, customer relationships, licenses, bonding capacity, and market presence, then combine them into a larger operating platform.
The pace of investment has accelerated in recent years. Construction Dive reported, citing PitchBook data, that construction-related transactions reached approximately 453 deals and $31.4 billion in deployed capital during 2025, up from the average activity level observed during the preceding several years. Strong demand for infrastructure, energy, data centers, and specialized construction services has further increased investor interest.
The trend is not limited to private equity-backed roll-up strategies. In 2026, Berkshire Hathaway announced its acquisition of public homebuilder Taylor Morrison in a transaction valued at approximately $8.5 billion, further illustrating the growing interest of large institutional investors in constructionrelated businesses. While different from a traditional private equity platform strategy, the transaction reflects the same underlying theme discussed throughout this article: sophisticated capital providers increasingly view construction, housing, and related service sectors as attractive opportunities for long-term growth, scale, operational efficiency, technology deployment, and geographic expansion. As larger pools of capital move into the industry, the distinction between locally branded construction organizations and nationally capitalized business platforms continues to blur.
Vertical integration also creates a discovery issue that claims and litigation professionals will recognize quickly. A recent Construction Dive opinion piece highlighted the potential conflict created when a PE-backed developer also owns or controls its general contractor. That structure does not prove bias or misconduct, but it can affect incentives around contractor selection, pricing, change orders, delay claims, warranty disputes, cost allocation, and defect allegations. If multiple parties share common ownership and the allocation of fault somehow avoids those relationships, that should draw attention. The practical questions are straightforward: Who owns whom? Who selected whom? Who benefits from the change order? Who allocated the cost? Were those relationships disclosed?
The trend extends beyond contractors alone. Investors have shown increased interest in architecture, engineering, and construction-related firms as demand for scale, technical capabilities, backlog depth, skilled labor, and geographic expansion continues to drive acquisition activity. For claims professionals, this means a growing number of contractors, consultants, and service providers involved in losses may be operating as part of larger organizations, more than their names or local histories might suggest. A restoration contractor, specialty trade contractor, engineering consultant, or construction-services provider may retain a local brand identity while functioning within a broader investment-backed platform.
Following the Claim Lifecycle
The biggest point may not be what is happening in any one industry. It is that outside capital is now showing up at almost every step in the claims process.
A claim may start with a policy placed through a consolidated brokerage platform. From there, it may move through a carrier, TPA, independent adjuster, forensic engineer, restoration contractor, outside counsel, expert witness, and construction professional. At several points along the way, one or more of those businesses may be connected to private equity, institutional investors, publicly traded companies, or some other form of outside capital.
For carriers, policyholders, attorneys, experts, and contractors, this is worth paying attention to. These structures can matter when selecting vendors, checking conflicts, evaluating disclosures, understanding capacity, managing assignments, and assessing how a company presents its independence, qualifications, or scope of services. Similarly, understanding who is behind the outside capital in claims litigation matters as it can reveal potential bias, a party’s actual financial stake in the outcome, and whether settlement negotiations are truly arm’s-length.
About the Authors:
Terence Kadlec is senior vice president, technical services at MC Consultants, Inc. terence.kadlec@mcconsultants.com
Mark Rose is a partner at Bickford & Chidnese, LLP. mark@bcflalaw.com