I’m in the privileged position of speaking to accountancy practices of almost every shape and size on a regular basis. That includes traditional independent firms, members of national networks, specialist practices and some of the PE-backed consolidators reshaping the profession. It gives me a fascinating view of a sector experiencing significant change, and the different ways firms are responding.
Independent accountancy firms vs PE backed?
Recently, I recorded two At Source conversations which, on the surface, represented opposing sides of the debate.
The first was with Chris Annis and Rob Harden, senior leaders at Affinia, a PE-backed group which has grown to more than 1,500 people across 33 locations.
The second brought together Declan Swan, CEO of UK200Group, and Jon O’Shea and Pambos Patsalides from Haslers, a 75-year-old independent firm and longstanding UK200Group member.
I expected the conversations to reveal some clear differences. They did, but what struck me more was how much common ground there was.
Both groups were grappling with the same fundamental question: how do you build an accountancy firm that is fit for the future without losing the qualities that made it successful in the first place?
Different models responding to the same pressures
Both conversations began with the pace of change. Technology and AI, increasing regulation, recruitment and retention, succession and changing client expectations are affecting every practice, regardless of its ownership.
Chris described Affinia’s growth as a response to those pressures. Before taking investment, the partners at LB Group were spending increasing amounts of time dealing with the infrastructure of running a firm rather than with clients. Joining forces with other businesses created the capacity, capability and investment to tackle those challenges collectively.
The independent firms are facing exactly the same issues. Declan described the recurring challenge for managing partners as balancing resources and revenue while maintaining a profitable, sustainable firm. Jon made an equally important point: the traditional partnership model can still be highly effective, but not if it means “lots of people sitting around the table making decisions slowly.” The market now changes too quickly for that.
The contrast is therefore not between firms that are changing and firms that are preserving the past. Every successful firm is having to evolve. The real difference lies in how they choose to do it.
Bigger is only worthwhile if it means better
For Affinia, scale is part of the answer, but the conversation was clear that scale should be a means to an end, not the objective itself.
As Chris put it: “It’s not about being a bigger firm; it’s about trying to become a better firm.”
Growth should create broader career opportunities, greater specialist capability and more investment in technology, while allowing local teams to continue serving their communities. Their description was “business as usual, with a plus”: the same office, people and clients, supported by additional expertise and capacity across the group.
However, scale introduces its own risks. Chris acknowledged that Affinia must not become the type of large firm people fear: “slow, corporate, over-processed and over-engineered.”
That comment I found interesting as it challenged a common assumption. Scale may provide resources, but it does not automatically produce a better client or employee experience. Leaders must remain deliberate about what they are building and what they refuse to lose along the way.
For independent firms, the question is slightly different. If they choose not to pursue scale through consolidation, how do they access the capabilities, knowledge and investment they need to keep pace?
The UK200Group conversation offered one answer.
Independence does not mean doing everything alone
UK200Group demonstrates how independent firms can access collective strength without giving up their autonomy.
Declan explained how members share technical knowledge and refer specialist work between firms. He described the “magic” as sitting not only in commercial collaboration but in knowledge collaboration: expertise is shared, firms learn together and the client receives the right support.
Clients increasingly need more than one firm can sensibly provide alone. Independent practices do not have to build every specialism internally; they need trusted relationships and the confidence to collaborate.
Haslers is also clear about what independence enables. It can make decisions quickly, respond to clients and retain control of its future. Pambos described independent firms as having a “nimble quality,” but also acknowledged that good service is not exclusive to independents. Clients still want responsiveness, accuracy and transparency over fees, and any well-run firm can provide those things.
Independence is a strength, but only when firms use it well. Just as scale does not automatically make a firm better, independence does not automatically make one more agile, personal or responsive.
Whichever model a firm chooses, its success will ultimately depend on how that model benefits its clients and its people.
Both models are competing for talent as much as clients
This was perhaps the strongest point of connection between the two conversations.
Affinia believes becoming part of a larger group can make recruitment easier, not simply because of salary, but because people can see broader career opportunities. Chris reflected that, before the Affinia journey, LB Group had excellent people but could not confidently promise that everything they wanted to achieve in their careers would be possible within the firm.
The independent perspective was equally thoughtful. Jon argued that well-run firms with a strong spread of generations, a healthy client pipeline and proper succession planning have a positive future. Haslers has one of its largest graduate intakes this year and sees real opportunity to bring people through the profession.
Both models are therefore trying to solve the same challenge: how to give talented people a reason to join, develop and stay.
Technology adds another dimension. The UK200Group discussion raised an important question: if AI removes some junior-level work, how will future accountants develop technical knowledge and critical-thinking skills?
Technology may make firms more efficient, but, as Jon observed, “you still need people to deal with people.” Accountancy remains a relationship-led profession. The ability to understand an individual client, adapt communication and apply judgement are capabilities that technology may not easily replace.
That leads back to the question running through both conversations: is the ownership model really the most important distinction?
Perhaps it is not independent versus private equity
Towards the end of the Affinia conversation, Rob said something which really struck me:
“You sometimes hear it portrayed as independent versus private equity. I’ve never understood that.”
Having listened to both discussions, I agree.
There will be successful PE-backed groups and successful independent firms. There will also be firms within both models that struggle because they fail to invest, lose sight of clients or do not create a compelling future for their people.
The more meaningful divide is between firms that respond to change with clarity and those that drift.
Rob’s advice to managing partners was simple: be honest about the challenges within the business, decide what you want for your clients and colleagues over the next three to five years, and develop a strategy. That strategy could involve remaining independent, combining with another local practice, developing the next generation or joining a larger group.
His final warning was: “Don’t drift.”
Declan expressed the independent equivalent just as powerfully. Being independently minded means being able to make your own choices, but it also means accepting responsibility for them: “It’s your future. You can influence that.”
Those two comments feel like natural counterparts.
One warns firms not to allow their future to happen by accident. The other reminds them that they have the power and responsibility to shape it.
That is what struck me most. The firms I spoke to have chosen different structures, but they share an ambition to build stronger businesses, create rewarding careers and provide better support to clients.
The ownership model matters. But the clarity of the strategy, the quality of the leadership and the choices made after that model is selected will matter far more.
