Weil Gotshal is a canary in the legal coal mine

Law firms have always had to live with the risk of top talent departing. If partners lose confidence in their firm’s future, or decide they can do better elsewhere, they head for the exits. If enough leave, the firm’s very survival can be at stake. What is different now is that this inherent instability, a feature of the partnership model rather than a bug, is being pushed to a breaking point by two converging forces: generational turnover in law firm leadership and the upheaval brought on by artificial intelligence.

A generation of law firm leaders is approaching retirement, forcing firms to confront difficult questions about succession. At the same time, AI is transforming how legal work gets done, calling into question the hourly billing model that long seemed untouchable. Lawyers no longer need to spend days reviewing thousands of contracts for diligence issues that software can flag in minutes. Discovery that once required armies of lawyers can now be narrowed with far greater precision. Research that used to take days can increasingly be completed in hours using AI-assisted platforms that identify precedents, summarize rulings and surface relevant arguments.

Adapting to these changes while navigating generational turnover can be treacherous. Advanced AI systems, cybersecurity infrastructure, workflow automation and data platforms all require substantial investment. So does providing liquidity to retiring senior partners and setting up the next generation for success.

One promising solution is the management services organization, or MSO, a model that my firm, Uplift Investors, has been at the forefront of bringing to the legal industry. MSOs allow outside investors like us to finance technology, operations and other nonlegal functions while lawyers retain control over the practice of law. The appeal is straightforward. Firms gain access to capital and professional management without having to surrender their independence. They can invest in technology and improve efficiency while freeing lawyers to focus on serving clients rather than running a business. For investors, the attraction is a large, fragmented industry with substantial room for modernization. And for clients, the potential payoff is better service at a lower cost.

Unfortunately, opponents of MSOs are threatening to cut off this lifeline. They argue that outside investment violates rules prohibiting nonlawyers from interfering with a lawyer’s professional judgment. What they conveniently gloss over is that MSOs are designed to preserve those very safeguards by separating business operations from the practice of law. Lawyers remain bound by strict professional obligations, and their duty to clients does not disappear because a firm adopts a different capital structure. Properly structured, MSOs can help firms modernize without compromising professional independence.

To be sure, the model is not a one-size-fits-all solution, and certain segments of the legal profession will need to explore other avenues for accessing outside capital. We believe MSOs are a natural fit for personal injury law, for example, where firms face significant upfront costs to pursue cases, often wait years to get paid and need substantial resources to compete effectively. That is why we have focused exclusively on personally injury to date.

Still, despite MSOs being particularly well suited to certain areas of the law, critics paint with a broad brush, lumping together different forms of outside capital and dismissing them wholesale as a “workaround” to existing rules. The stakes are not academic, and they extend far beyond the fate of any single law firm.

Across the country, millions of Americans live in legal deserts, where individuals and small businesses struggle to find affordable counsel. Smaller and regional firms are often best positioned to serve these communities, but many lack the resources to invest in technology, expand their reach and lower costs. Denying them access to growth capital leaves underserved communities with even fewer choices and threatens to make legal services more expensive and less accessible to those who need them most.

This makes the growing patchwork of conflicting state rules governing MSOs particularly troubling. Firms in some jurisdictions can access capital to modernize and expand, while competitors elsewhere are denied the same opportunity. Clients will feel the consequences not as abstract regulatory distinctions, but as higher bills, slower service and fewer choices. The irony is hard to miss. In the name of protecting the profession, these restrictions shield the largest incumbents from the very competition that would make those incumbents and the industry more durable.

The future of law is arriving whether the establishment likes it or not. Weil should be a wake-up call. The wrong lesson to draw is that even the most prestigious firms can disappear. The real lesson is that an industry facing unprecedented change can no longer afford to be denied the capital needed to adapt. Protecting professional independence is essential. Protecting an outdated business model at the expense of the profession’s future is indefensible.

The opinions expressed in Fortune.com commentary pieces are solely the views of their authors and do not necessarily reflect the opinions and beliefs of Fortune.