Multidisciplinary practice redux: Globalization, core values, and reviving the MDP debate in America

Fordham Law Review

Volumn 78, Issue 5, 2010, Pages 2193-2244

  Paton, Paul D ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF THE PACIFIC   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 77952705925     PISSN: 0015704X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (423)

1. AM. BAR ASS'N CTR. FOR PROF'L RESPONSIBILITY, THE HOUSE ADOPTED REVISED RECOMMENDATION 10F (2000), http://www.abanet.org/cpr/mdp/mdprecomlOf.html [hereinafter Recommendation 10F].
2. Id.
3. see also Sydney M. Cone, III, Views on Multidisciplinary Practice with Particular Reference to Law and Economics, New York, and North Carolina, 36 WAKE FOREST L. REV. 1, 4 (2001);
4. L. Harold Levinson, Collaboration Between Lawyers and Others: Coping with the ABA Model Rules After Resolution 10F, 36 WAKE FOREST L. REV. 133, 135-36 (2001).
5. Contra Marc N. Biamonte, Multidisciplinary Practices: Must a Change to Model Rule 5.4 Apply to All Law Firms Uniformly?, 42 B.C. L. REV. 1161, 1164 (2001) (posing contrary view of the uncertainty left by the ABA July 2000 vote, calling the ABA move to disband its MDP Commission "shortsighted and irresponsible");
6. Adam A. Shulenburger, Would You Like Fries with That? The Future of Multidisciplinary Practices, 87 IOWA L. REV. 327, 329 (2001).
7. See Paul D. Paton, Competition Bureau Report: Competition, Self-Regulation and the Challenge of Change, BRIEFLY SPEAKING (Can.), May 2008, at 15 (reviewing COMPETITION BUREAU CAN., SELF-REGULATED PROFESSIONS - BALANCING COMPETITION AND REGULATION (2007), available at http://competitionbureau.gc.ca/ eic/site/cb-bc.nsf/vwapj/Professions%20study%20final%20E.pdf/$FILE/ Professions%20study%20final %20E.pdf);
8. see also Laurel S. Terry, The Future Regulation of the Legal Profession: The Impact of Treating the Legal Profession as "Service Providers," 2008 J. PROF. LAW. 189, 201;
9. Press Release, Competition Bureau Can., Consumers and Economy Would Benefit from Reduction in Regulation in Professions, a Competition Bureau Study Finds (Dec. 11, 2007), http://www.bureaudelaconcurrence.gc.ca/eic/site/cb-bc. nsf/eng/02540.html.
10. Press Release, Am. Bar Ass'n, ABA President Carolyn B. Lamm Creates Ethics Commission To Address Technology and Global Practice Challenges Facing U.S. Lawyers (Aug. 4, 2009), http://www.abanet.org/abanet/media/release/news- release.cfm?releaseid=730.
11. Id.
12. James Podgers, Off the Mat, A.B.A. J., Aug. 2009, at 65.
13. DEBORAH L. RHODE, IN THE INTERESTS OF JUSTICE: REFORMING THE LEGAL PROFESSION 208 (2000).
14. THE LAW SOC'Y OF UPPER CAN., GOVERNANCE TASK FORCE, FINAL REPORT TO CONVOCATION 74-75 (2009), available at http://www.lsuc.on.ca/media/convdec09- govemance.pdf.
15. AM. BAR ASS'N, ABA COMMISSION ON ETHICS 20/20, PRELIMINARY ISSUES OUTLINE 1 (2009) [hereinafter ABA ETHICS 20/20 PRELIMINARY ISSUES OUTLINE];
16. see also Stephen Mayson, Global Law Firms: A Strategy Looking for a Market? 12 (Apr. 2008) (unpublished discussion paper), available at http://www.law.georgetown.edu/LegalProfession/documents/MaysonWebsiteArticle. pdf ("As these dynamics of globalisation and competition play out, there are potentially significant challenges for law firms in maintaining strategic, cultural and professional integrity.").
17. ABA ETHICS 20/20 PRELIMINARY ISSUES OUTLINE, supra note 9, at 6.
18. Id.
19. LEGAL SERVS. BD., WIDER ACCESS, BETTER VALUE, STRONG PROTECTION: DISCUSSION PAPER ON DEVELOPING A REGULATORY REGIME FOR ALTERNATIVE BUSINESS STRUCTURES 4 (2009).
20. See the discussion of Australian regulatory changes in Paul D. Paton, Between a Rock and a Hard Place: The Future of Self-Regulation - Canada Between the United States and the English/Australian Experience, 2008 J. PROF. LAW. 87, 104-07;
21. Christine Parker, Law Firms Incorporated: How Incorporation Could and Should Make Firms More Ethically Responsible, 23 U. QUEENSL. L.J. 347 (2004) [hereinafter Parker, Law Firms Incorporated] (discussing MDPs and ILPs in Australia);
22. Christine Parker, Peering Over the Ethical Precipice: Incorporation, Listing and the Ethical Responsibilities of Law Firms (Univ. of Melbourne, Melbourne Law Sch., Legal Studies Research Paper No. 339, 2008) [hereinafter Parker, Peering Over the Ethical Precipice], available at http://papers.ssrn. com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract-id=1132926 (analyzing the implications of the incorporation and listing on the Australian Securities Exchange of Slater & Gordon, the "first law firm in the world to list");
23. see also Andrew Grech & Kirsten Morrison, Slater & Gordon: The Listing Experience, 22 GEO. J. LEGAL ETHICS 535 (2009).
24. See infra notes 103-33 and accompanying text (discussing the adoption of By-laws governing multidisciplinary practices and affiliated law firms by The Law Society of Upper Canada);
25. see also BY-LAW NO. 7, pts. III-IV (Law Soc'y of Upper Can. 2009) [hereinafter LAW SOC'Y BY-LAW 7], available at http://www.lsuc.on.ca/media/ bylaw7.pdf;
26. Paul D. Paton, What Happens After "Happily Ever After"? Regulatory Resistance and Rule-Making After Canadian and American Bar Association Resolutions on Multidisciplinary Practice, 36 U. B. C. L. REV. 259 (2003);
27. Paul D. Paton, "In the Public Interest": Threats to Self-Regulation of the Legal Profession in Ontario, 1998-2006 (Feb. 2008) (unpublished JSD dissertation, Stanford University) (on file with the Library of Congress) (from which portions of the historical record here have been drawn and updated).
28. Legal Services Act, 2007, c. 29 (U.K.). The history of events leading up to its passage is canvassed in Paton, supra note 13, at 88, 96-104;
29. see also Judith L. Maute, Bar Associations, Self-Regulation and Consumer Protection: Whither Thou Goest?, 2008 J. PROF. LAW. 53;
30. Judith L. Maute, Revolutionary Changes to the English Legal Profession or Much Ado About Nothing?, PROF. LAW., 2006, at 1 [hereinafter Maute, Revolutionary Changes];
31. John Flood, Future Directions in the UK Legal Profession: Life After the Legal Services Act 2007 (Apr. 17-18, 2008) (unpublished paper), available at http://www.law.georgetown.edu/LegalProfession/documents/FloodWebsitePaper.doc.
32. For a seminal history of the English legal profession setting the stage for these recent developments, see RICHARD L. ABEL, ENGLISH LAWYERS BETWEEN MARKET AND STATE: THE POLITICS OF PROFESSIONALISM (2003).
33. Legal Services Act, c. 29, pt. 5.
34. THE STATE BAR OF CAL., LONG-RANGE STRATEGIC PLAN 11 (2002).
35. THE STATE BAR OF CAL., TASK FORCE ON MULTIDISCIPLINARY PRACTICE, REPORT AND FINDINGS ON MULTIDISCIPLINARY PRACTICE, at vi (2001) [hereinafter THE STATE BAR OF CAL., TASK FORCE ON MDP].
36. Id. at 23.
37. D.C. RULES OF PROF'L CONDUCT R. 5.7 (2006);
38. see also Larry E. Ribstein, The Death of Big Law 32-33 (Univ. Ill. Law & Econ. Research Paper Series, Research Paper No. LE09-025, 2009), available at http://ssrn.corn/abstract=1467730.
39. A sampling of legal press reports of the impact of the economic downturn of 2008-2009 on law firms confirms the dramatic results. See Adam Cohen, With the Downturn, It's Time To Rethink the Legal Profession, N.Y. TIMES, Apr. 2, 2009, at A26;
40. Ross Todd, Fading Away, AM. LAW., Aug. 2009, at 64 ("Since January 2008, Am Law 200 firms have laid off more than 2,900 lawyers.");
41. Debra Cassens Weiss, 2009 's Toll: More Than 10,000 Law Firm Layoffs and Lower Pay Trend, A.B.A. J., May 28, 2009, http://www.abajoumal.com/news/article/ 2009s-toll-more-than-10000-law-firm-layoffs (reporting that year to date, 3881 lawyers and 6282 law firm staff had been laid off by major U.S. law firms);
42. see also Martha Neil, After Early March Mayhem, Law Firm Layoffs Slow: Month's Total Nears 3,500, A.B.A. J., Mar. 26, 2009, http://www.abajournal.com/ news/article/march-began-with-mayhem-but-blistering-layoffs-pace-is-slowing;
43. Martha Neil, March Mayhem: Law Firm Layoffs in 1 Week Total Nearly 1,500, A.B.A. J., Mar. 4, 2009, http://www.abajoumal.com/news/article/march-mayhemJaw- firm-layoffs-top-500-today-over-1200-since-friday;
44. Martha Neil, Partner Pay Cuts Are New Signpost in Dismal Law Firm Economic Landscape, A.B.A. J., Mar. 24, 2009, http://www.abajoumal.com/news/ article/parmer-pay-cuts-are-new-signpost-in-dismal-law-firm-economic-landscape;
45. Posting of Brian Baxter to The Am Law Daily, http://amlawdaily.typepad. com/amlawdaily/2009/08/unemployment-rate-falls-but-legal-sector-still- contracting.html (Aug. 7, 2009, 12:45 EST);
46. Legal Strategy 101: It's Time for Law Firms To Re-think Their Business Model, KNOWLEDGEWHARTON, Apr. 29, 2009, http://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/ article.cfm?articleid=2231 (subscription required, on file with the Fordham Law Review).
47. For an analysis of the impact of the 2008-2009 downturn on law firms in America beyond the companion articles in this volume, see Ribstein, supra note 20.
48. Harry W. Arthurs & Robert Kreklewich, Law, Legal Institutions, and the Legal Profession in the New Economy, 34 OSGOODE HALL L.J. 1, 48 (1996).
49. Robert A. Prentice, The SEC and MDP: Implications of the Self-Serving Bias for Independent Auditing, 61 OHIO ST. L.J. 1597, 1599 (2000);
50. Jack Giles, Why Multi-Disciplinary Practices Should Be Controlled by Lawyers, 59 ADVOCATE 695 (2000). As noted above, Resolution 10F prevented MDPs from operating in the United States; regulators in Ontario, Canada, adopted a form of MDP that is assessed below, but that I characterize as "law firm plus" rather than a fully integrated multidisciplinary, multiprofessional partnership.
51. For a detailed consideration of the rhetoric of "core values" in the context of the multidisciplinary practice debate in the United States, see Nathan M. Crystal, Core Values: False and True, 70 FORDHAM L. REV. 747 (2001),
52. and Bruce A. Green, The Disciplinary Restrictions on Multidisciplinary Practice: Their Derivation, Their Development, and Some Implications for the Core Values Debate, 84 MINN. L. REV. 1115, 1144-49 (2000).
53. See Crystal, supra note 24, at 748.
54. Gillian K. Hadfield, The Price of Law: How the Market for Lawyers Distorts the Justice System, 98 MICH. L. REV. 953, 956 (2000);
55. see also ROBERT G. EVANS & MICHAEL J. TREBILCOCK, LAWYERS AND THE CONSUMER INTEREST, at xi-xiii (1982);
56. John S. Dzienkowski & Robert J. Peroni, Multidisciplinary Practice and the American Legal Profession: A Market Approach To Regulating the Delivery of Legal Services in the Twenty-First Century, 69 FORDHAM L. REV. 83 (2000);
57. Gillian K. Hadfield, Legal Barriers to Innovation: The Growing Economic Cost of Professional Control over Corporate Legal Markets, 60 STAN. L. REV. 1689 (2008).
58. Bryant Garth, From Civil Litigation to Private Justice: Legal Practice at War with the Profession and Its Values, 59 BROOK.L. REV. 931,931 (1993).
59. A sampling of considerations of self-regulatory models and structures in the United States during the period includes RICHARD L. ABEL, AMERICAN LAWYERS (1989);
60. Benjamin Hoom Barton, Why Do We Regulate Lawyers? An Economic Analysis of the Justifications for Entry and Conduct Regulation, 33 ARIZ. ST. L.J. 429 (2001);
61. Crystal, supra note 24;
62. Garth, supra note 27;
63. Helen Hershkoff, State Courts and the "Passive Virtues": Rethinking the Judicial Function, 114 HARV. L. REV. 1833 (2001);
64. James W. Jones, Future Structure and Regulation of Law Practice: An Iconoclast's Perspective, 44 ARIZ. L. REV. 537 (2002);
65. Russell G. Pearce, The Professional Paradigm Shift: Why Discarding Professional Ideology Will Improve the Conduct and Reputation of the Bar, 70 N.Y.U. L. REV. 1229 (1995);
66. Andrew M. Perlman, Toward a Unified Theory of Professional Regulation, 55 FLA. L. REV. 977 (2003);
67. Tanina Rostain, Ethics Lost: Limitations of Current Approaches to Lawyer Regulation, 71 S. CAL. L. REV. 1273 (1998);
68. John P. Sahl, The Public Hazard of Lawyer Self-Regulation: Learning from Ohio's Struggle To Reform Its Disciplinary System, 68 U. CIN. L. REV. 65 (1999);
69. Ted Schneyer, Introduction: The Future Structure and Regulation of Law Practice, 44 ARIZ. L. REV. 521 (2002);
70. Jeffrey W. Stempel, Embracing Descent: The Bankruptcy of a Business Paradigm for Conceptualizing and Regulating the Legal Profession, 27 FLA. ST. U. L. REV. 25 (1999);
71. Paul R. Tremblay, Shared Norms, Bad Lawyers, and the Virtues of Casuistry, 36 U.S.F. L. REV. 659 (2002);
72. W. Bradley Wendel, Public Values and Professional Responsibility, 75 NOTRE DAME L. REV. 1 (1999);
73. David B. Wilkins, Afterword: How Should We Determine Who Should Regulate Lawyers?- Managing Conflict and Context in Professional Regulation, 65 FORDHAM L. REV. 465 (1996);
74. David B. Wilkins, Who Should Regulate Lawyers?, 105 HARV. L. REV. 799 (1992);
75. Charles W. Wolfram, Inherent Powers in the Crucible of Lawyer Self-Protection: Reflections on the LLP Campaign, 39 S. TEX. L. REV. 359 (1998);
76. Fred C. Zacharias, The Future Structure and Regulation of Law Practice: Confronting Lies, Fictions, and False Paradigms in Legal Ethics Regulation, 44 ARIZ. L. REV. 829 (2002).
77. See also more recent considerations in JOHN P. HEINZ, ROBERT L. NELSON, REBECCA L. SANDEFUR & EDWARD O. LAUMANN, URBAN LAWYERS: THE NEW SOCIAL STRUCTURE OF THE BAR (2005) (assessing forces of transformation and change in the Chicago bar over a twenty-year period),
78. and Fred C. Zacharias, The Myth of Self-Regulation, 93 MINN. L. REV. 1147 (2009) [hereinafter Zacharias, The Myth of Self-Regulation].
79. In addition to the other references cited below, literature during the prior debate of particular importance includes, on multidisciplinary practice, MULTIDISCIPLINARY PRACTICE: STAYING COMPETITIVE AND ADAPTING TO CHANGE (Gary A. Munneke & Ann L. MacNaughton eds., 2001),
80. and in particular, NAT'L MULTTDISCIPLINARY P'SHIPS COMM., FEDERATION OF LAW SOCIETIES OF CANADA MULTTDISCIPLINARY PARTNERSHIPS: REPORT TO DELEGATES (1999), reprinted in MULTTDISCIPLINARY PRACTICE: STAYING COMPETITIVE AND ADAPTING TO CHANGE, supra, app. 3 at 145;
81. also Gary A. Munneke, Lawyers, Accountants, and the Battle To Own Professional Services, 20 PACE L. REV. 73 (1999);
82. on globalization of legal services, THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF THE PRACTICE OF LAW (Jens Drolshammer & Michael Pfeifer eds., 2001);
83. Carole Silver, Globalization and the U.S. Market in Legal Services-Shifting Identities, 31 LAW & POL'Y INT'L BUS. 1093 (2000);
84. Detlev F. Vagts, The Impact of Globalization on the Legal Profession, 2 EUR. J.L. REFORM 403 (2000).
85. A remarkably prescient commentary on both globalization and multidisciplinary practice is found in Roderick A. Macdonald, Let Our Future Not Be Behind Us: The Legal Profession in Changing Times, 64 SASK. L. REV. 1 (2001).
86. CANADIAN BAR ASS'N, INT'L PRACTICE OF LAW COMM., STRIKING A BALANCE: THE REPORT OF THE INTERNATIONAL PRACTICE OF LAW COMMITTEE ON MULTI-DISCIPLINARY PRACTICES AND THE LEGAL PROFESSION 11 (1999) [hereinafter STRIKING A BALANCE] (citation omitted). The issue of how to define multidisciplinary practice was the subject of considerable debate itself. The Canadian Bar Association's (CBA) August 2000 Council Resolution 00-03-A encompassed more than the fundamentally integrated "one-stop shop" envisioned by the looser 1999 definition. It provided that MDPs are business arrangements in which lawyers [including Quebec notaries] and non-lawyers practice together to provide a broad range of advice, including legal advice, to consumers, and which encompass a variety of forms, from highly integrated organizations with lawyers and non-lawyers working under one ownership structure to loose referral networks. Canadian Bar Ass'n, Council Res. 00-03-A (2000). The Federation of Law Societies of Canada tabled draft Model Rules for Multi-Disciplinary Practices at its meeting on February 26, 2000, that defined MDPs as encompassing both integrated and affiliated law firm models. Fed'n of Law Soc'ys of Can., Nat'l Multi-Disciplinary P'ships Comm., Model Rules for MDPs - Draft (Jan. 25, 2000) (on file with the author). The Federation failed to reach a "consensus such as would be necessary to have the federation adopt a model rule of any form." V. RANDELL J. EARLE, REPORT OF THE NATIONAL MDP COMMITTEE OF THE FEDERATION OF LAW SOCIETIES OF CANADA 2000 ANNUAL MEETING, HALIFAX, NS (2000), available at http://www.flsc.ca/en/documents/2000mdpreport.doc. The Law Society of Upper Canada, for example, separated the concept of the MDP from affiliation arrangements between law firms and other providers. Other regulators have not made similar distinctions and prefer to treat all alliances, from fully integrated firms to looser referral arrangements, as MDPs. For ease of understanding and reference, I adopt the Canadian Bar Association's Striking a Balance conception and definition of the MDP unless making specific reference to other definitional choices.
87. Bryant G. Garth, Multidisciplinary Practice After Enron: Eliminating a Competitor but Not the Competition, 29 LAW & Soc. INQUIRY 591, 592 (2004).
88. COLIN BOYD, THE TRANSFORMATION OF THE ACCOUNTING PROFESSION: THE HISTORY BEHIND THE BIG 5 ACCOUNTING FIRMS DIVERSIFYING INTO LAW 13 (1999).
89. See Giles, supra note 23 (discussing the "core values" of the legal profession).
90. See Crystal, supra note 24, at 774 (footnote omitted).
91. W. Bradley Wendel, Nonlegal Regulation of the Legal Profession: Social Norms in Professional Communities, 54 VAND. L. REV. 1955, 1953 (2001) (abstract).
92. See the discussion in RHODE, supra note 7, at 144-47,
93. and Zacharias, The Myth of Self-Regulation, supra note 28, at 1147-48.
94. See, e.g., Law Society Act, R.S.O., ch. L 8 (1990) (Can.).
95. MODEL RULES OF PROF'L CONDUCT, at ix-x (2009);
96. About the Canadian Bar Association, http://www.cba.org/CBA/about/main/ (last visited Mar. 19, 2010);
97. CBA Code of Professional Conduct, http://www.cba.org/CBA/activities/code/ (last visited Mar. 19, 2010).
98. Levinson, supra note 2, at 135.
99. Id. at 135-36.
100. Id. at 143-44.
101. Harold Levinson, an advisor to the New York State Bar Association Special Committee on the Law Governing Firm Structure and Operation in 1999-2000, did not see the resolution as particularly problematic in this regard. This perhaps reflected his confidence that the New York model set out in that state bar's committee report provided the answers other state bars required.
102. Canadian Bar Ass'n, Council Res. 00-03-A (2000).
103. STRIKING A BALANCE, supra note 30, at 11.
104. Canadian Bar Ass'n, Council Res. 00-01-M (2000) (Multi-Disciplinary Practices).
105. For a Canadian perspective, see, for example, Kent Roach & Edward M. Iacobucci, Multidisciplinary Practices and Partnerships: Prospects, Problems and Policy Options, 79 CANADIAN B. REV. 1, 5 (2000) (arguing that consumers will benefit from a liberal regime of MDP governance, but striking a cautionary note: "Whatever regulatory response is taken must be justified in the public interest as necessary to protect the consumers of legal services and the ethical canons of the legal profession. There is a significant danger, however, that regulators will be pressured to act in a protectionist manner.");
106. see also Julius Melnitzer, Here Come the Bean-Counters ⋯ A Primer on Multidisciplinary Practice, Part One, CANADIAN L., Nov.-Dec. 1999, at 34.
107. For perspectives in an American context see, for example, Mary C. Daly, Choosing Wise Men Wisely: The Risks and Rewards of Purchasing Legal Services from Lawyers in a Multidisciplinary Partnership, 13 GEO. J. LEGAL ETHICS 217 (2000) [hereinafter Daly, Choosing] (describing the activities of the ABA Commission on Multidisciplinary Practice);
108. Mary C. Daly, What the MDP Debate Can Teach Us About Law Practice in the New Millennium and the Need for Curricular Reform, 50 J. LEGAL EDUC. 521 (2000) [hereinafter Daly, New Millennium] (drawing on Daly's experience as a reporter for the ABA Commission on Multidisciplinary Practice);
109. Dzienkowski and Peroni, supra note 26;
110. Phoebe A. Haddon, The MDP Controversy: What Legal Educators Should Know, 50 J. LEGAL EDUC 504 (2000);
111. Carol A. Needham, Permitting Lawyers To Participate in Multidisciplinary Practices: Business as Usual or the End of the Profession as We Know It?, 84 MINN. L. REV. 1315 (2000);
112. Michael W. Price, A New Millennium's Resolution: The ABA Continues Its Regrettable Ban on Multidisciplinary Practice, 37 HOUS. L. REV. 1495 (2000);
113. Stuart S. Prince, The Bar Strikes Back: The ABA's Misguided Quash of the MDP Rebellion, 50 AM. U. L. REV. 245 (2000);
114. George Steven Swan, The Political Economy of Interprofessional Imperialism: The Bar and Multidisciplinary Practice, 1999-2001, 24 J. LEGAL PROF. 151 (2000);
115. Laurel S. Terry, A Primer on MDPs: Should the "No" Rule Become a New Rule?, 72 TEMP. L. REV. 869 (1999);
116. Edieth Y. Wu, Why Say No to Multidisciplinary Practice?, 32 LOY. U. CHI. L.J. 545 (2001).
117. For discussions after the ABA House of Delegates July 2000 vote, see also Julia J. Hall, Resolving the MDP Issue: Deciding If the Status Quo Is What's Best for the Client, 52 MERCER L. REV. 1191 (2001);
118. Burnele V. Powell, Looking Ahead to the Alpha Jurisdiction: Some Considerations That the First MDP Jurisdiction Will Want To Think About, 36 WAKE FOREST L. REV. 101 (2001).
119. MICHAEL J. TREBILCOCK & LILLA CSORGO, MULTI-DISCIPLINARY PROFESSIONAL PRACTICES: A CONSUMER WELFARE PERSPECTIVE (1999). I was involved in the commissioning of this study, its editing and release, and I adopt its analysis.
120. See also Michael Trebilcock & Lilla Csorgo, Multi-Disciplinary Professional Practices: A Consumer Welfare Perspective, 24 DALHOUSIE L. J. 1 (2001).
121. Mary C. Daly, Monopolist, Aristocrat, or Entrepreneur?: A Comparative Perspective on the Future of Multidisciplinary Partnerships in the United States, France, Germany, and the United Kingdom After the Disintegration of Andersen Legal, 80 WASH. U. L.Q. 589, 645-46 (2002).
122. Nancy B. Rapoport, Multidisciptinary Practice After In Re Enron: Should the Debate on MDP Change at All?, 65 TEX. B.J. 446, 447 (2002).
123. The term "Big Five" accounting firms includes the firms of PricewaterhouseCoopers, KPMG, Deloitte & Touche, Ernst & Young, and Arthur Andersen. Arthur Andersen remained in existence after the collapse of Enron, but only as a shell of its former self. The firm imploded in early 2002, even prior to its June 2002 conviction on criminal charges brought by the U.S. Department of Justice against it for obstructing justice in the Securities and Exchange Commission's investigation of Enron. See United States v. Arthur Andersen LLP, No. H-02-121, 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 26870 (S.D. Tex. May 24, 2002). During the period under discussion, however, all five accounting firms were actively engaged in or were pursuing the development of legal services and regulatory discussions and the use of "Big Five" remains historically accurate. For the period after mid-June 2002, the term "Big Four" is used herein to refer to the activities of the major accounting firms.
124. See also George C. Nnona, Situating Multidisciptinary Practice Within Social History: A Systematic Analysis of Inter-professional Competition, 80 ST. JOHN'S L. REV. 849 (2006).
125. See Ward Bower, MDP Isn 't the Problem, NAT'L L. J., Mar. 11, 2002, at A21.
126. See Paul D. Paton, Rethinking the Role of the Auditor: Resolving the Audit/Tax Services Debate, 32 QUEEN'S L.J. 135, 135 (2006);
127. Strengthening the Commission's Requirements Regarding Auditor Independence, Securities Act Release No. 8183, Exchange Act Release No. 47, 265, Public Utility Holding Company Act Release No. 27,642, Investment Company Act Release No. 25, 915, Investment Advisers Act Release No. 2103, 68 Fed. Reg. 6006 (Feb. 5, 2003).
128. See Deborah L. Rhode & Paul D. Paton, Lawyers, Ethics, and Enron, 8 STAN. J.L. Bus. & FIN. 9 (2002) (discussing lawyer roles in the Enron failure and the need for structural reform of lawyer regulation to address the problems exposed);
129. see also Roger C. Cramton, Enron and the Corporate Lawyer: A Primer on Legal and Ethical Issues, 58 Bus. LAW. 143, 162-67 (2002);
130. Kurt Eichenwald, The Findings Against Enron: Many Avenues Are Seen for Criminal Investigators, N.Y. TIMES, Sept. 23, 2002, at C1;
131. Mike France, What About the Lawyers?, BUS. WK., Dec. 23, 2002, at 58;
132. Susan P. Koniak, Who Gave Lawyers a Pass?, FORBES, Aug. 12, 2002, at 58;
133. Otis Bilodeau, In a Harsh Light: Report on Enron Puts Spotlight on Lawyers Who Put Together Sales Deals That Seem Really To Be Loans, BROWARD DAILY BUS. REV., Oct. 1, 2002, 2002 WLNR 15016322 (Westlaw) (highlighting that later revelations brought lawyer conduct increasing attention). Civil lawsuits in Texas with respect to the liability of Vinson & Elkins LLP alleged civil conspiracy and fraudulent conduct by the law firm.
134. See, e.g., First Amended Complaint at 31-36, In re Enron Corp. Sec. Derivative & "ERISA" Litig., 529 F. Supp. 2d 644 (S.D. Tex. 2006) (No. H-01-3624).
135. In addition to authorities noted supra notes 2, 24, 29, and 31,
136. see also Daly, New Millennium, supra note 45. For a law and economics analysis of consumer welfare issues in the MDP debate in the U.S.,
137. see Dzienkowski & Peroni, supra note 26;
138. Daniel R. Fischel, Multidisciplinary Practice, 55 Bus. LAW. 951 (2000);
139. George C. Harris & Derek F. Foran, The Ethics of Middle-Class Access to Legal Services and What We Can Learn from the Medical Profession's Shift to a Corporate Paradigm, 70 FORDHAM L. REV. 775 (2001).
140. Contra David Luban, Asking the Right Questions, 72 TEMP. L. REV. 839, 839 (1999) (suggesting that the law and economics analysis is misguided, and arguing instead that in considering the MDP issue, "[t]he right question is not whether new roles with no rules are good for lawyers and clients, but rather whether they are good for the rest of us").
141. Am. Bar Ass'n Comm'n on Multidisciplinary Practice, Report of the Commission on Multidisciplinary Practice to the ABA House of Delegates, PROF. LAW., Spring 1999, at 1, 1.
142. Harris & Foran, supra note 53, at 785
143. quoting Dzienkowski and Peroni, supra note 26, at 129).
144. Daly, New Millennium, supra note 45, at 529.
145. Id.
146. David Segal, Rules May Shake Law Industry: ABA To Break Accounting Barrier, WASH. POST, June 4, 1999, at E1.
147. Am. Bar Ass'n Comm'n on Multidisciplinary Practice, supra note 54, at 7 (Draft Resolution, paras. 14(A), (E)).
148. AM. BAR ASS'N, THE FLORIDA BAR REPORT WITH RECOMMENDATION TO THE HOUSE OF DELEGATES 2 (2000) (internal quotation marks omitted);
149. see also Daly, Choosing, supra note 45, at 280 & n.263 (cautioning that "interpre[ing] the 1999 vote as a setback for MDPs ⋯ would be too cavalier," particularly given that it paralleled developments then underway outside the United States).
150. Contra Harris & Foran, supra note 53, at 786 (considering the vote to be ominous).
151. AM. BAR ASS'N CTR. FOR PROF'L RESPONSIBILITY, COMM'N ON MULTIDISCIPLINARY PRACTICE, UPDATED BACKGROUND AND INFORMATIONAL REPORT AND REQUEST FOR COMMENTS (1999), http://www.abanet.org/cpr/mdp/febmdp.html.
152. Daly, Choosing, supra note 45, at 275.
153. Id.
154. Id. Daly notes in her review that this support from small firms was consistent with the survey information provided by the Law Society of Upper Canada, noted above, though she does not go on to note that the Law Society of Upper Canada ignored its own evidence in this regard. Id. at 276.
155. AM. BAR ASS'N, REPORT OF THE COMMISSION ON MULTIDISCIPLINARY PRACTICE 183 (2000).
156. Sue Allen, ABA Votes To Retain Ban on MDPs, GAZETTE (U.K.), July 13, 2000, at 8;
157. see also Robert R. Keatinge, Colorado and Denver in the House: MDP Declared Heresy by the ABA House of Delegates, COLO. LAW., Sept. 2000, at 48;
158. John Gibeaut, 'It's A Done Deal': House of Delegates Vote Crushes Chances for MDP, A.B.A. J., Sept. 2000, at 92.
159. Am. Bar Ass'n Ctr. for Prof 1 Responsibility, Comm'n on Multidisciplinary Practice, Transcript of House of Delegates Annual Meeting (July 11, 2000), http://www.abanet.org/cpr/mdp/mdp-hod-transc.html;
160. AM. BAR ASS'N CTR. FOR PROF'L RESPONSIBILITY, REPORT 10F (2000), http://www.abanet.org/cpr/mdp/mdp-report10f.html [hereinafter ABA, REPORT 10F].
161. Recommendation 1 OF, supra note 1.
162. Id.
163. see also Allen, supra note 66;
164. Wendy Davis, ABA Emphatically Rejects MDPs, NAT'L L.J., Jul. 24, 2000, at A5;
165. Jean Eaglesham, Courting Conflict, FIN. TIMES (London), July 13, 2000, at 22.
166. ABA, REPORT 1 OF, supra note 67.
167. Gibeaut, supra note 66, at 93.
168. Keatinge, supra note 66, at 48.
169. Id.
170. Press Release, Am. Antitrust Inst., AAI Says Legal Profession's Recommendation on Multidisciplinary Practices May Violate Antitrust Laws (Feb. 8, 2000), http://www.antitrustinstitute.org/archives/52.ashx.
171. Id.
172. see also Dzienkowski & Peroni, supra note 26, at 94.
173. Press Release, Am. Antitrust Inst., supra note 74.
174. Canadian Bar Ass'n, About the Canadian Bar Association, http://www.cba.org/CBA/Info/Main (last visited Mar. 18, 2010).
175. Id.
176. Full disclosure: I am a member of the CBA and in 2009-2010 Chair of the CBA Ethics and Professional Responsibility Committee. The views expressed herein are, however, my own.
177. CANADIAN BAR ASS'N, SPECIAL COMM. ON THE INT'L PRACTICE OF LAW, MULTI-DISCIPLINARY PRACTICES: AN INTERIM REPORT, at i (1998).
178. Id. at 5.
179. Id.
180. Id.
181. Id. at 6.
182. Id.
183. Id.
184. Id. at 5-6.
185. STRIKING A BALANCE, supra note 30.
186. Press Release, Canadian Bar Ass'n, CBA Releases Report on Lawyers' Involvement in Multi-Disciplinary Practices (Aug. 21, 1999).
187. STRIKING A BALANCE, supra note 30, at 5.
188. Monique Conrad, Canadian Bar Association, CANADIAN LAW., Sept. 1999, at 10
189. (quoting Eugene Meehan).
190. Id.
191. (quoting Eugene Meehan).
192. Canadian Bar Ass'n, Council Res. 00-03-A, § 3 (2000).
193. Cristin Schmitz, CBA Wants Law Societies To Let Lawyers Join MDPs, LAW. WKLY. (Can.), Sept. 1, 2000, available at TLWN (Lexis);
194. see also Michael Fitz-James, Lawyers Don't Have To Control MDPs, LAW TIMES (Can.), Aug. 28, 2000, at 1.
195. Schmitz, supra note 94.
196. Id. (second alteration in original)
197. (quoting Robert Armstrong).
198. Eric Atkins, LSUC Treasurer Robert Armstrong Quits CBA over Voting Procedure, LAW. WKLY. (Can.), Sept. 8, 2000, available at TLWN (Lexis).
199. Canadian Bar Ass'n, Council Res. 00-01-M, para, 1.a (2000).
200. Id.
201. Id.
202. Id.
203. see also Press Release, Canadian Bar Ass'n, CBA Resolution Says Business of MDPs Should Be Controlled by Lawyers (Feb. 19, 2001).
204. See Mid-Winter 2001, CBA Council: MDPs: A New Approach, NATIONAL (Can.), Mar./Apr.2001, at 54, 54.
205. An Act to Amend the Law Society Act, 1998 S.O., ch. 21 (Can.).
206. Id. ch. 21, art. 29(1) (amending Law Society Act, R.S.O., ch. L. 8, § 62(0.1) 32 (1990)).
207. THE LAW SOC'Y OF UPPER CAN., WORKING GROUP ON MULTI-DISCIPLINE PARTNERSHIPS, REPORT TO CONVOCATION, THE "FUTURES" TASK FORCE - FINAL REPORT OF THE WORKING GROUP ON MULTI-DISCIPLINE PARTNERSHIPS, at Mandate, para. 1 (1998) [hereinafter FUTURES TASK FORCE FINAL REPORT].
208. BY-LAW NO. 25 (Law Soc'y of Upper Can.1999) [hereinafter LAW SOC'Y BY-LAW 25], was later amended three times in 1999 (May 28, June 25, and December 10), twice in 2001 (April 26 and May 24), and once in 2002 (October 31), but the changes are not substantial for the purposes of this discussion. The By-Law was revoked on May 1, 2007, as part of housekeeping amendments necessitated by the October 2006 amendments to the Law Society Act. See THE LAW SOC'Y OF UPPER CAN., BY-LAW REVIEW COMM., REPORT TO CONVOCATION APR. 26, 2007 (2007), available at http://www.lsuc.on.ca/media/convapr07-bylaw-review.pdf;
209. see also LAW SOC'Y BY-LAW 7, supra note 14, pt. III. The prior numbering was in place during the period until 2003 and is therefore retained for this discussion.
210. See LAW SOC'Y OF NEW S. WALES PROF'L CONDUCT AND PRACTICE RULE R. 40.1 (repealed 2008), http://www.lawsociety.com.au/ForSolictors/ professionalstandards/Ruleslegislation/SolicitorsRules/027157.
211. D.C. RULES OF PROF'L CONDUCT R. 5.4(b) (2006).
212. FUTURES TASK FORCE FINAL REPORT, supra note 105, Executive Summary.
213. Id. Executive Summary ("The early (and current) protagonists for the development of MDPs are the large chartered accounting or professional services firms who see the partnering of lawyers and accountants as the next logical step in the continued globalization and consolidation of professional services."). Yet, not two paragraphs later the Task Force notes that such developments could flow to "main street," involving lawyers and other professionals, and service providers in small centers and smaller firms or sole practices.
214. Id.
215. Id. para. 97.
216. See LAW SOC'Y BY-LAW 25, supra note 106, §§ 4(l)-(4) (defining "effective control" and "good character").
217. FUTURES TASK FORCE FINAL REPORT, supra note 105, Executive Summary (emphasis added).
218. Id. app. 10 (MDP Form and Data).
219. Id.
220. Id. (The Law Society's analysis of the survey notes, "A significantly smaller number of respondents (about 760) indicated that business arrangements with others were entered into to provide multi-discipline services to clients. What is not known is whether this is a result of the current restrictions within the regulatory regime, a desire on the part of lawyers to remain in control and independent, or a combination of both.")
221. Id. Executive Summary.
222. Id. app. 9 (Discussion Sessions with Practising Members, Employed Members, Accountants, and In-House Counsel).
223. Id. (emphasis added).
224. Id. Executive Summary.
225. Id.
226. See THE LAW SOC'Y OF UPPER CAN., STATUS REPORT OF THE MULTI-DISCIPLINARY PRACTICE TASK FORCE: REPORT TO CONVOCATION NOV. 26, 1999, at 1 & n.2 (1999) [hereinafter THE LAW SOC'Y OF UPPER CAN., STATUS REPORT], available at http://www.lsuc.on.ca/media/MDPreportnov99.PDF (referencing a mandate from June 1999);
227. MULTI-DISCIPLINARY PRACTICE TASK FORCE, CONSULTATION SESSION INFORMATION ON THE AFFILIATED OR "CAPTIVE" LAW FIRM (1999), reprinted in THE LAW SOC'Y OF UPPER CAN., STATUS REPORT, supra, app. 2 (noting that the issue first arose at the September 1998 Convocation).
228. THE LAW SOC'Y OF UPPER CAN., MULTI-DISCIPLINARY PRACTICE TASK FORCE, IMPLEMENTATION PHASE: REPORT TO CONVOCATION APR. 26, 2001, at 1 n.1 (2001)
229. (quoting The Law Soc'y of Upper Can. Transcript of Convocation 218 (Sept. 25, 1998).
230. THE LAW SOC'Y OF UPPER CAN., STATUS REPORT, supra note 122, at 1.
231. BY-LAW NO. 32, § 1(2) (Law Soc'y of Upper Can. 2001) (repealed 2007) [hereinafter LAW SOC'Y BY-LAW 32], available at http://www.lsuc.on.ca/media/ revokedbylaw32.pdf. Note that this By-Law was also revoked on May 1, 2007, as part of the consequential changes required by the October 2006 amendments to the Law Society Act but that its provisions remain in force, with different numeration in the new By-Law 7. LAW SOC'Y BY-LAW 7, supra note 14.
232. The Law Soc'y of Upper Can., Notice of Affiliation, By-Law 32, Form 32A (2001), available at http://www.lsuc.on.ca/media/form32aEN.pdf.
233. LAW SOC'Y BY-LAW 32, supra note 125, §§ 3-4.
234. Id. § 2(a)-(b).
235. Id. § 2(c).
236. Id. § 1(2).
237. IMPLEMENTATION REPORT, supra note 123, at 14.
238. Id. at 3.
239. Paton, supra note 13, at 116-18;
240. see also Anthony E. Davis, Regulation of the Legal Profession in the United States and the Future of Global Law Practice, PROF. LAW., 2009, at 1, 8.
241. 1998 S.B.C., ch. 9 (B.C.).
242. Id. §11(1).
243. Id. § 3(a)(i)-(iii).
244. Id. § 3(b)(ii).
245. The proposal, discussed below, attracted a majority of votes, but more than a simple majority was required to amend the Law Society Rules.
246. Consultation on Multi-Disciplinary Practice, BENCHERS' BULL. SUPPLEMENT (The Law Soc'y of B.C., Vancouver, B.C.), July-Aug. 2001, http://www.lawsociety. bc.ca/publications-forms/bulletin/2000-01/01-08supp-MDP.html.
247. Id.
248. Id.
249. Id.
250. Id.
251. See Richard Margetts, "You Don't Need a Weatherman": Another Word in the Multi-Disciplinary Practice Debate, 59 ADVOCATE 543 (2001) [hereinafter Margetts, You Don't Need a Weatherman];
252. Richard S. Margetts, President's View: Lawyers at the Crossroads, BENCHERS' BULL. (The Law Soc'y of B.C., Vancouver, B.C.), Jan.-Feb. 2001, http://www.lawsociety.bc.ca/publications-fonns/bulletin/2000-01/01-02.html [hereinafter Margetts, President's View];
253. see also Brad Daisley, Profile: Karl Warner, the New President of the Law Society of British Columbia, Wants To Loosen the Reins of Regulation and Open the Profession to Competition, LAW. WKLY. (Can.), Mar. 10, 2000, available at TLWN (Lexis).
254. Margetts, President's View, supra note 144;
255. Richard Margetts, The Changing Nature of the Practice of Law: A Reply to Mr. Giles on the Issue of Multi-Disciplinary Practice, 59 ADVOCATE 31 (2001) [hereinafter Margetts, The Changing Nature of the Practice of Law];
256. see also Jack Giles, Response to the President on Multi-Disciplinary Practice, 59 ADVOCATE 233 (2001).
257. Gary Oakes, Profile: Richard Margetts, the New President of the Law Society of B.C., Sees a Need To Maximize Opportunities Posed by the Changing Landscape, LAW. WKLY. (Can.), Mar. 16, 2001, available at TLWN (Lexis) (quoting Richard Margetts).
258. Margetts, The Changing Nature of the Practice of Law, supra note 145, at 32.
259. Id.
260. Id.
261. The Law Soc'y of B.C., Benchers Say No to Multi-Disciplinary Practice, BENCHERS' BULL. (The Law Soc'y of B.C., Vancouver, B.C.), Nov.-Dec. 2001, http://www.lawsociety.bc.ca/publications-forms/bulletin/2000-01/01-12-14-MDP. html.
262. THE STATE BAR OF CAL., TASK FORCE ON MDP, supra note 18, at iii.
263. CAL. RULES OF PROF'L CONDUCT R. 1-310(2010).
264. THE STATE BAR OF CAL., TASK FORCE ON MDP, supra note 18, at 3.
265. Am. Bar Ass'n Ctr. For Prof 1 Responsibility, MDP Information (Jan. 18, 2005), http://www.abanet.org/cpr/mdp/mdp-state-summ.html.
266. Telephone Interview with Randall Difuntorum, Prof 1 Competence Unit, The State Bar of Cal. (Mar. 17, 2003). Difortunum suggested the matter might come back before the Board in August 2003, but there is no accessible record of it ever having done so.
267. THE STATE BAR OF CAL., LONG-RANGE STRATEGIC PLAN, supra note 17, at 11. There is no reference in the 2004 Strategic Plan to MDPs.
268. THE STATE BAR OF CAL., TASK FORCE ON MDP, supra note 18, at v.
269. Id. at v, 20, 22-23, 38-42. Various other rules would require modification, including CAL. RULES OF PROF'L CONDUCT R. 1-300 (aiding the unauthorized practice of law);
270. CAL. RULES OF PROF'L CONDUCT R. 1-400;
271. CAL. BUS. & PROF. CODE §§ 6150-6159.2 (West 2003) (advertising and solicitation);
272. CAL. BUS. & PROF. CODE § 6068(e) (West 2003) (protection of client confidential information);
273. CAL. RULES OF PROF'L CONDUCT R. 3-300,3-310, 3-320 (avoidance of conflicts of interest);
274. CAL. RULES OF PROF'L CONDUCT R. 1-600 (professional independent judgment);
275. CAL. RULES OF PROF'L CONDUCT R. 1-100(D) (geographic scope of rules);
276. CAL. RULES OF PROF'L CONDUCT R. 2-100 (communication with a represented party) and others.
277. THE STATE BAR OF CAL., TASK FORCE ON MDP, supra note 18, at vi.
278. Id.
279. Id. at 25.
280. Id.
281. Id. The report uses the certified public accountant audit function (in conflict with the lawyer's duty of confidentiality) and the duty of certain health care and counseling professionals to disclose evidence of child abuse (in conflict with the lawyer's duty of confidentiality) to illustrate situations of "some professional services that so inherently conflict that they cannot be integrated in an MDP environment."
282. Id. at 30.
283. Id. at 11-12.
284. 863 P.2d 150, 166 (Cal. 1993) (Kennard, J., dissenting) ("If the practice of law is to remain a profession and retain public confidence and respect, it must be guided by something better than the objective of accumulating wealth.").
285. THE STATE BAR OF CAL., TASK FORCE ON MDP, supra note 18, at 17.
286. In April 2009, the New York State Bar adopted changes to the state Rules of Professional Conduct that in essence made New York the next-to-last state (California being the only holdout) to base its lawyer discipline rules on the ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct. N.Y. RULES OF PROF'L CONDUCT pt, 1200 (2009);
287. see also Richard Acello, New York Makes Itself a 'Model' State: California Now the Only Holdout on Adopting the ABA Model Rules, A.B.A. J., Sept. 2009, at 22. This discussion refers to the prior scheme, though the restrictions on MDPs remain.
288. See News Release, N.Y. State Bar Ass'n, New Rules Clarify Standards for N.Y. Lawyers' Alliances with Nonlegal Professional Service Firms (July 24, 2001), in W. VA. LAW., Sept. 2001, at 19;
289. New York Becomes First To Allow Multidisciplinary Business Affiliations, DAILY TAX REPORT NO. 145, Jul. 30, 2001, at G4 [hereinafter N.Y. Becomes First], available at 145 DTR G-4, 2001 (Westlaw). It should be noted, however, that the District of Columbia has permitted nonlawyer partners in law firms since the early 1990s. District of Columbia Rule 5.4(b) permits such arrangements only if the "partnership or organization has as its sole purpose providing legal services to clients." D.C. RULES OF PROF'L CONDUCT R. 5.4(b)(1) (2006). Accordingly, the D.C. rule is viewed as governing law firm arrangements rather than MDPs per se.
290. News Release, N.Y. State Bar Ass'n, supra note 168
291. (quoting Steven C. Krane, President of the N.Y. State Bar Association).
292. N.Y. RULES OF PROF'L CONDUCT R. 5.7 (2009).
293. Id. R. 5.8.
294. Id. R. 5.7, 5.8.
295. Id. R. 5.8.
296. Id.
297. Id.
298. See id. R. 7.1.
299. See id. R. 7.5.
300. See id. R. 1.1.
301. See id. R. 7.5(b).
302. N.Y. STATE BAR ASS'N SPECIAL COMM. ON THE LAW GOVERNING FIRM STRUCTURE AND OPERATION, PRESERVING THE CORE VALUES OF THE AMERICAN LEGAL PROFESSION: THE PLACE OF MULTIDISCIPLINARY PRACTICE IN THE LAW GOVERNING LAWYERS (2000) [hereinafter N.Y. STATE BAR ASS'N, PRESERVING THE CORE VALUES]. For background on the Chair of the Committee and a key figure in the ABA deliberations, see Victor Futter & E. Nobles Lowe, A Profile of Robert MacCrate, EXPERIENCE, Summer 2001, at 30.
303. See N.Y. State Bar Ass'n, A Brief History and Purpose, http://www.nysba.org/Content/NavigationMenu/AboutNYSBA/ HistoryandStructureoftheAssociation/History-and-Structur.htm (last visited Mar. 19, 2010).
304. N.Y. Becomes First, supra note 168.
305. News Release, N.Y. State Bar Ass'n, supra note 168
306. (quoting Steven C. Krane, President of the N.Y. State Bar Association).
307. Cone, supra note 2, at 12-13;
308. see also Sydney M. Cone, III, The Future Debate on Multidisciplinary Practice in the United States, 2 EUR. J. L. REFORM 611, 625 (2000).
309. See N.Y. STATE BAR ASS'N, PRESERVING THE CORE VALUES, supra note 180, at 117 ("Two features distinguish the regulation and professionalization of the American bar from those of most other professions.");
310. id. at 109 ("In contrast to the divided bar in other common law countries and the diffuse character of lawyering in various civil law countries, the American legal profession over the last 200 years has evolved as a single profession, set apart and unified by its organization, education and common body of learning, as well as by acquired skills and adopted values associated with the profession. Law and medicine have been distinguished in this manner from other professions in the United States, including that of accountancy, which has never achieved an identity but has been splintered and spread into diffuse components." (footnote omitted));
311. see also Cone, supra note 2, at 13.
312. N.Y. STATE BAR ASS'N, PRESERVING THE CORE VALUES, supra note 180, at 324.
313. Id.
314. Id. at 342-52 (discussing the necessary rule changes "With Respect to Interprofessional 'Strategic Alliances' and other Contractual Relationships Between Lawyers and Nonlawyers").
315. Legal Services Act, 2007, c. 29 (U.K.).
316. Id. pt. 5.
317. U.K. OFFICE OF FAIR TRADING, COMPETITION IN PROFESSIONS (2001).
318. See Claire Smith, The OFT Report: The Legal, LAWYER (London), Mar. 12, 2001, http://www.thelawyer.com/the-oft-report-the-legal/77471.article;
319. see also Jean Eaglesham, Lawyers To Be Subject to Full Force of Competition Law, FIN. TIMES (London), Mar. 9, 2001, at 3;
320. Jeremy Fleming, Society Primed To Launch Fresh Battle over MDPs, GAZETTE (U.K.), Mar. 15, 2001, at 4.
321. U.K. OFFICE OF FAIR TRADING, supra note 191, at 7, 11;
322. see also Margetts, You Don't Need a Weatherman, supra note 144, at 545-46.
323. Smith, supra note 192.
324. Alison Crawley, The Law Soc'y of Eng. & Wales, Solicitors, Accountants and Multi-Disciplinary Practice: The English Perspective, http://Avww.abanet.org/cpr/mdp/crawley.html (last visited Mar. 19, 2010).
325. Neil Rose, Multi-Disciplinary Partnerships on Horizon After 'Seismic' Vote, GAZETTE (U.K.), Oct. 20, 1999, at 3.
326. ALISON CRAWLEY, BRONWEN STILL & NICOLA TAYLOR, MULTI-DISCIPLINARY PRACTICES: PROPOSALS FOR THE WAY FORWARD: A PRELIMINARY REPORT FOR DEBATE (1999).
327. Id. para. 22.
328. Id. para. 22(1).
329. Id. para. 22(2).
330. Id. paras. 22-24.
331. See Law Society To Push MDPs Through Early, LAWYER (London), Nov. 13, 2000, htrp://www.thelawyer.corn/law-society-to-push-mdps-through-early/102942. article.
332. Id.
333. NICOLA TAYLOR, LAW SOC'Y OF ENG. & WALES, MULTI-DISCIPLINARY PRACTICE WORKING PARTY THIRD INTERIM REPORT: LEGAL PRACTICE PLUS - A FIRST STEP TOWARDS MDPS 7 (2000).
334. Id.
335. Id. at 4.
336. Id. at 5.
337. Neil Rose, Law Society Lays the Groundwork for MDPs, GAZETTE (U.K.), July 13, 2000, at 4.
338. TAYLOR, supra note 204, at 3.
339. For a more detailed analysis of the two models and the ethical ramifications of their operation, see Aubrey Meachum Connatser, Multidisciplinary Partnerships in the United States and the United Kingdom and Their Effect on International Business Litigation, 36 TEX. INT'L. L.J. 365, 380-90 (2001).
340. Neil Rose, Multi-Disciplinary Practices: Should the UK Follow the US's Lead?, GAZETTE (U.K.), July 20, 2000, at 9.
341. See Chris Arnheim, Why Most Clients Want a One-Stop Shop, TIMES (London), July 18, 2000, at 16.
342. See Jean Eaglesham & John Mason, Independent Spirit, FIN. TIMES (London), Nov. 6, 2000, at 26 (reporting on the Commercial Lawyer magazine survey, noting that thirty-seven percent of FTSE 100 companies said they would consider using an MDP as their main law firm, compared with sixty-six percent of businesses quoted on the smaller Alternative Investment Market and fifty-six percent of businesses within the top 300 private companies).
343. U.K. LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEP'T, IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST? A CONSULTATION BY THE LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT FOLLOWING THE OFT REPORT ON COMPETITION IN PROFESSIONS (2002), available at http://www.dca.gov.uk/consult/general/oftrept. htm.
344. Jean Eaglesham, Accountants Face Setback over Plans To Sell Legal Services, FIN. TIMES (London), July 30, 2002, at 2.
345. As in North America, the most strident opposition to MDPs in England came from litigators. Since the English system is bifurcated into barristers and solicitors, the response of the Bar Council to the Office of Fair Trading demand was significant both in respect of MDP matters generally and because of intraprofessional concerns: prior to the 2007 reforms, the Law Society feared that the English barristers would hold themselves out as the only independent Bar in England should MDPs proceed. The Bar Council strenuously opposed partnerships among barristers and nonlawyers as posing insurmountable conflict of interest problems and limiting consumer choice in advocacy. See Connatser, supra note 209, at 384.
346. Press Release, Ministry of Justice, Legal Services Act Given Royal Assent (Oct. 30, 2007), http://www.justice.gov.uk/news/newsrelease301007a.htm;
347. see also Legal Services Act, 2007, c. 29 (U.K.); Ministry of Justice, Legal Services Act 2007, http://www.justice.gov.uk/publications/ legalservicesbill.htm (last visited Mar. 19, 2010) (assessing the regulatory impact of the law).
348. For a detailed history of the events leading up to the adoption of the 2007 legislation, see Paton, supra note 13, at 96-104.
349. Press Release, Ministry of Justice, supra note 216.
350. Id.
351. See Maute, Revolutionary Changes, supra note 15, at 11-12.
352. Legal Services Act, c. 29, pt. 1.
353. Id.
354. See SIR DAVID CLEMENTI, REVIEW OF THE REGULATORY FRAMEWORK FOR LEGAL SERVICES IN ENGLAND AND WALES: FINAL REPORT 1 (2004) (internal quotation marks omitted).
355. Flood, supra note 15, at 4.
356. See Paton, supra note 13, at 100
357. (quoting Press Release, Dep't of Constitutional Affairs (U.K.), Wide-Ranging Review Aims To Open Up Competition (July 24, 2003)).
358. See the discussion of the Clementi Review in LEGAL SERVICES BOARD, supra note 12, at 7;
359. Flood, supra note 15, at 6-8;
360. and Paton, supra note 13, at 100-04.
361. SIR DAVID CLEMENTI, REVIEW OF THE REGULATORY FRAMEWORK FOR LEGAL SERVICES IN ENGLAND AND WALES: A CONSULTATION PAPER 2, 14-23 (2004).
362. Id. at 1.
363. See also the helpful summary in Maute, Revolutionary Changes, supra note 15, at 9-10.
364. CLEMENTI, supra note 227, at 32, 34-35, 51-53 (Questions B1-B6, D2-D4).
365. See id. at 34.
366. See id. at 34-35;
367. see also Paul D. Paton, Legal Services and the GATS: Norms as Barriers to Trade, 9 NEW ENG. J. INT'L & COMP. L. 361 (2003);
368. Terry, supra note 3.
369. CLEMENTI, supra note 223, at 12, app. 1.
370. Id. at 2, 14-23.
371. Id.
372. Id. at 8.
373. Id. at 49-50.
374. Id. at 66-67.
375. Id. at 51-80.
376. Id. at 9, 105-39.
377. Id. at 108-32.
378. Id. at 139.
379. The history of the debate and all amendments is set out on the UK Parliament website at http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/pabills/200607/ legal-services.htm (last visited Mar. 19, 2010). A prior version was introduced in the House of Lords in November 2006.
380. See the detailed discussion in Maute, Revolutionary Changes, supra note 15, at 12-13.
381. LEGAL SERVS. BD., supra note 12, at 9-10.
382. Id. at 4, 12-15.
383. Id. at 5.
384. Id. at 4.
385. Id. at 30;
386. see also Office of the Legal Services Commissioner, New South Wales, http://www.lawlink.nsw.gov.au/lawlink/olsc/l1-olsc.nsf/pages/OLSC-index (last visited Mar. 19, 2010).
387. Davis, supra note 133, at 9. In their 2009 articles, both Anthony Davis and John Flood have used transaction-focused MDPs as illustrations of a serious competitive threat to U.S. law firms.
388. See id. at 8-9;
389. Flood, supra note 15, at 10 (considering the potential impact of an investment firm buying a large international law firm to offer a "total M&A package at rates that would not depend on variable professional fees but straightforward value billing instead").
390. See The discussion of Australian regulatory changes in SLATER & GORDON LIMITED, PROSPECTUS (2000);
391. Grech & Morrison, supra note 13;
392. Parker, Law Firms Incorporated, supra note 13 (discussing MDPs and ILPs in Australia);
393. Paton, supra note 13, at 104-07;
394. and Parker, Peering Over the Ethical Precipice, supra note 13, at 3 (analyzing the implications of the incorporation and listing on the Australian Securities Exchange of Slater & Gordon, the "first law firm in the world to list").
395. Parker, Law Firms Incorporated, supra note 13, at 1
396. & nl;Reid Mortensen & Linda Haller, Legal Profession Reform in Queensland, 23 U. QuEENSL. L.J. 280 (2004).
397. The Law Council of Australia notes that [t]he Model Laws project was largely undertaken under the auspices and in conjunction with the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General (SCAG) culminating in the public release of the second edition Legal Profession Model Bill late in 2006. Between 2004 and 2008 the States and territories (apart from South Australia) enacted a Legal Profession Act based on the template of the model legislation. The Law Council of Australia, The Model Legal Profession Bill, Status of Implementation, http://www.lawcouncil.asn.au/programs/national-profession/model-bill.cfm (last visited Mar. 19, 2010);
398. see Council of Australian Governments (COAG) National Legal Profession Reform, http://www.ag.gov.au/legalprofession (last visited Mar. 19, 2010);
399. see also STANDING COMM. OF ATTORNEYS-GEN., LEGAL PROFESSION - MODEL LAWS PROJECT: MODEL BILL (MODEL PROVISIONS) (2d ed. 2007);
400. STANDING COMM. OF ATTORNEYS-GEN., LEGAL PROFESSION-MODEL LAWS PROJECT: MODEL REGULATIONS (2d ed. 2007);
401. Linda Haller, Imperfect Practice Under the Legal Profession Act 2004 (Qld), 23 U. QUEENSL. L.J. 411 (2004).
402. Paton, supra note 13, at 105.
403. John Corcoran, President, Law Council of Austl., The State of the Profession, Speech Given at the 36th Australian Legal Convention 3 (Sept. 19, 2009), available at http://www.lawcouncil.asn.au/shadomx/apps/fms/fmsdownload. cfin?file-uuid=CABF097B-lE4F-17FA-D276-46725B8903E0&siteName=lca.
404. Id.
405. Id. at 9.
406. See Crystal, supra note 24, at 774.
407. See, e.g., Charles W. Wolfram, Comparative Multi-Disciplinary Practice of Law: Paths Taken and Not Taken, 52 CASE W. RES. L. REV. 961, 963-66 (2002);
408. see also BOYD, supra note 32;
409. N.Y. STATE BAR ASS'N, PRESERVING THE CORE VALUES, supra note 180, at 141-53.
410. See the discussion in Rhode & Paton, supra note 52, at 26-27 (discussing the ABA's rejection, twice, of the recommendation of its Ethics 2000 Commission to amend the Model Rules of Professional Conduct to require lawyers to reveal information when necessary to prevent or rectify substantial economic harm).
411. For analysis of section 307 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, see Paul D. Paton, Corporate Counsel as Corporate Conscience: Ethics and Integrity in the Post-Enron Era, 84 CANADIAN B. REV. 533 (2006). The SEC adopted final rules implementing section 307 on January 23, 2003, and released the text of the rules the following week.
412. See Press Release, SEC, SEC Adopts Attorney Conduct Rules Under Sarbanes-Oxley Act (Jan. 23, 2003), http://www.sec.gov/news/press/2003-13.htm.
413. For final rule text, see Implementation of Standards of Professional Conduct for Attorneys, Securities Act Release No. 8185, Exchange Act Release No. 47,276, Investment Company Act Release No. 25, 919, 68 Fed. Reg. 6296 (Feb. 6, 2003);
414. see also Stephen M. Bainbridge & Christina J. Johnson, Managerialism, Legal Ethics, and Sarbanes-Oxley Section 307, 2004 MICH. ST. L. REV. 299;
415. Roger C. Cramton, George M. Cohen & Susan P. Koniak, Legal and Ethical Duties of Lawyers After Sarbanes-Oxley, 49 VILL. L. REV. 725 (2004);
416. Sung Hui Kim, The Banality of Fraud: Re-situating the Inside Counsel as Gatekeeper, 74 FORDHAM L. REV. 983 (2005);
417. William H. Simon, Introduction: The Post-Enron Identity Crisis of the Business Lawyer, 74 FORDHAM L. REV. 947 (2005).
418. Parker, Peering Over the Ethical Precipice, supra note 13.
419. Elizabeth Chambliss & David B. Wilkins, A New Framework for Law Firm Discipline, 16 GEO. J. LEGAL ETHICS 335 (2003);
420. Elizabeth Chambliss, MDPs: Toward an Institutional Strategy for Entity Regulation, 4 LEGAL ETHICS 45 (2001);
421. Ted Schneyer, A Tale of Four Systems: Reflections on How Law Influences the "Ethical Infrastructure" of Law Firms, 39 S. TEX. L. REV. 245 (1998);
422. Ted Schneyer, Professional Discipline for Law Firms?, 77 CORNELL L. REV. 1 (1991);
423. see also Parker, Law Firms Incorporated, supra note 13, at 368-79 (arguing that as new forms of business models become entrenched, it affords the opportunity to develop new models for ethical practice and internalization of responsibility for ethical conduct).