Yes it will hurt SEO because basically they are fragmenting momentum and funnelling. It will also hurt their Google reputation:
We have a few properties pointed to one physical address. Granted they are different "microstores" on different domains, but all under the same parent company. So far 3 of them have been flagged duplicate, 1 of them is impossible to reactivate either due to bug, or hardcore duplicate flag (ban). The one that is locked is the most "different" of the rest too which is strange. I spoke with a guy at Google maps about this and he was adamant that you should be careful with things like this. He actually said he wasn't sure how all the properties weren't flagged and taken down for abuse. I had to explain to him that each domain sells different things (microstore) and that the location is the parent company. After about 10 mins of convo he said this might be one of the very very few times that he would allow this to happen.
So how does that relate to your case with the lawyers? Well first some logic:
- A lawyer employed by a business is not the business and should have no location/maps Google+ page
- A lawyer is a person therefore should be using a Google+ profile instead
- Google+ profiles can be linked to Google+ pages more naturally than just copying as a location
So by not using the proper types of profile, mis-using the pages, and spamming locations, the firm is basically "gaming" the system. I would strongly suggest taking them down and consolidating into 1 business and multiple attorneys profiles before your location (and G+ biz profiles) get locked too by either automation, a human marking "duplicate" on maps, or a Google employee realizing that the firm is "gaming" their service.