ANTI-MDP

• Do not favor, but inevitable.
• Do not favor—destructive to concept of professionalism and will further erode lawyers' reputation.
• Unalterably opposed—endeavor, if at all possible, to keep the profession pure.
• No one stop shops needed. It leads to overreaching through greediness.
• I strongly believe that the acceptance of MDP will likely result in a loss of independence of attorneys and their advice to client. The potential harm to clients clearly outweighs the potential benefit.
• Inevitable, but not in favor. Our rules mandate that we stay in control.
• I have an MBA in addition to my JD. I have also worked with many lawyers who are CPAs. Lawyers need to better promote their own non-legal capabilities, rather than partnering with nonlawyers.
• MDP will not benefit clients—companies that expand into other areas suffer inefficiencies resulting in increased prices, poor service, loss of efficiency, etc., e.g. CRESPA—title companies charge as much as attorneys and gouge customers with higher premiums.
• Adamantly opposed to MDP. The Bar should do all it can to prevent being overrun by the Big 5.
• MDP is a terrible idea for clients for many, many reasons . . . leaving the rules strict and enforcing when complaints occur makes much more sense than creating yet another "victimless" crime.
• No MDP—we are and should be distinct and separate from others.
• Clients would be better served through closer communication between professionals employed by the client.
• The distinctions between lawyers handling business matters and other professionals will disappear.
• Such a BAD idea for so many GOOD reasons.
• I do not believe core values would be retained in nonlawyer-controlled firms.
  
  

PRO-MDP

• Deregulate to the maximum. Streamline procedures for dealing with malpractice and malfeasance - better for public and attorneys. Encourage private industry to stand behind better professionals, regardless of area of practice.
• Inevitable; must be in a position to ethically provide services.
• Inevitable; already here; will prevail in court.
• Inevitable; rather than fight, participate in development of appropriate regulation.
• Competition from accounting firms will pressure law firms to modify the way they deliver legal services.
• Some areas of legal practice are now so technically integrated with some other professional disciplines that MDP with nonlawyer partners is inevitable. Moreover, other jurisdictions are considering similar rules, and we need guidance on resolution of conflicts between VSB and other mandatory bars. Finally, even legal judgment is not infallible. The real key is how to exercise control over the non-lawyer, which could be done in voluntary agreements—the quid pro quo for sharing fees is for the non-lawyer to accept the bar rules and discipline process.
  
• Lawyers can be unethical in a "core" environment or in a MDP. We must meet the growing/changing market needs while preserving our core ethical values. They are not mutually exclusive.
• The bar should carefully avoid any restrictions on the options available to lawyers. Only lawyers should practice law and they should have full professional responsibility regardless of setting or structure; make sure nonlawyers and public are aware of lawyers' professional responsibilities and limitations.
• Attorney participation in MDP is appropriate, but I would be concerned where actual representation was involved, or where clients were drawn from the general public.
• A natural combination is lawyers, CPAs and insurance.
• This (3b) is the most realistic approach to take in our communication-driven, integrated, technological society, and would best protect the integrity of professionals.
• As long as lawyers are in control of the entity and the bar regulates such entities, we should not carve ourselves out of what's happening all around us.
• MDPs should be controlled by attorneys.
• Based on my career as in-house counsel, I believe that lawyers can preserve the core values of the profession even where the environment is controlled by nonlawyers. For this system to work, the answer lies not in who controls the environment, but rather in very clear standards as to whom the lawyers' obligations run.
• To enhance client services in a number of related professions fully integrated MPDs should be the objective.
• Lawyers are losing business and clients are overpaying for multiple services from multiple providers.
• The professional must allow MDPs. As general counsel for a corporation, I want to be able to get service from a fully integrated firm.
  
  

OTHER REMARKS

• Editorial opinions on survey (e.g. 3b statement in parentheses) unnecessary.
• This form suggests a result. It is not adequately balanced.
• The bias of this survey is very evident. The results would be more meaningful if the Major Points and the questions did not evidence the clear bias of the author.
• 3b is prejudicial—negative phrasing.
• Need to move quickly or attorneys in certain practice areas will not be able to compete with professionals in related fields who are already finding ways to work around the bar's out-dated rules.
• No change should be made reducing attorney's ethical obligations to the client.
• MDP may be the death knell for solo and small firm practices.
• MDP converts a law firm to a business.
• If the rules are worth having they are worth enforcing. The effort and expense has nothing to do with right or wrong! If the legislature, after hearing all ethics issues, wishes to abrogate our authority (rules)—so be it . . . . . the public will suffer at their hands.
• Do not ignore MDP. Accountants have not. Financial planners have not. If lawyers do not face realty—lawyers will not be in control of MDP entities, and our clients will suffer.
• This is not a major issue for most lawyers.
• I see no reason an attorney could not work for a non-attorney. You may want to require the employer to certify it will comply with the rules.
• Only a lawyer should be able to render legal services. When a lawyer is employed by other professionals, e.g., an accounting firm, the lawyer's services are only to enhance the accounting services.
• Stringent enforcement of rules only make sense in purely adversarial situations; in transactional situations, most other professions have ethical requirements as fiduciaries, albeit without an enforcement mechanism. I thought the ABA report on MDP was the best recommendations.
• Any option is a potential nightmare . . . what is the appropriate posture (uninfluenced by actual events or economic) based upon appropriate legal profession tenets.
• Lawyers must maintain independence and responsibility for all areas related to legal representation.
• Failure to address this issue invites General Assembly action.
• Lawyers must recognize that MDP is here—look at the largest CPA and consulting firms. Ultimately there may be two sets of rules for MDPs—one covering litigation, another services such as taxation, real estate, etc.
• D.C. already allows nonlawyers as members of law firms.
• I cooperate with an MDP in D.C. where I am also licensed, and everyone works well together. The fears of lawyers about MDPs are unwarranted and antiquated. Sophisticated clients want MDPs.
• In-house counsel started the trend toward MDP without bar rule modifications and without harm to the profession.
• Under no circumstances should nonattorneys be allowed to practice law or direct attorneys who are practicing law.
• I have worked in-house and in private practice and have observed same pressure to get business—core values apply in all cases.
• Inevitable—let VA be the first and the best, with emphasis on core values. VA should be the model for these new practice arrangements.
• MDP model endorsed by the bar should make lawyers responsible for their actions individually.
• Lawyers must do nothing to abrogate the profession's independence, loyalty and confidentiality, while having maximum flexibility to service client through partnering with other professionals.
• Clients have difficulty distinguishing between legal services and other services, i.e., accounting and business consultation.

POSSIBLE PROBLEMS

• Lawyer-controlled models will burden attorneys with legal and non-legal work.
• Suggestion for "conference committee" of various professions to review definitions of the professions to ensure a merger could be appropriately regulated by each profession.
• May be a need for specific limitation directed to criminal defense firms.
• Need special considerations/more flexibility for nonprofits.
• Problems I foresee include conflicts of interest and client confidentiality.
• When lawyers get into MDPs they are tempted into unethical situations/those which are to detriment of clients.
• The better capitalized law firms could swallow the traditional legal profession under a full- integrated approach. Self-regulation would be impossible.
  

back to MDP Report

back to MDP home page

About the Bar      Member Information     Public Information      Lawyer Referral     Sections      Professional Regulation     Home