Not exact matches
I say let us help deliver needed legal services to the less fortunate, but let us do it without making the historical and irreversible blunder of
allowing the wedge of
nonlawyer ownership of law firms.
The 400 - page act instigated hundreds if not thousands of changes, including
allowing nonlawyers to hold
ownership and management positions in law firms and
allowing creation of multidisciplinary practices.
In 1983 and again from 1999 to 2000, the ABA considered revising Model Rule 5.4 in order to
allow for
nonlawyer ownership and multidisciplinary practices in some form, but in each case the House of Delegates declined to make any changes.
The reason that England and Wales as well as Australia adopted PMBR is because their systems were changed to
allow for
nonlawyer ownership.
And
allowing for minority
nonlawyer ownership of law firms might be just a preliminary phase in ultimately
allowing for majority
nonlawyer ownership.
[3] However, D.C.'s rule is narrowly tailored to
allow equity
ownership only by those
nonlawyer partners who actively assist the firm's lawyers in providing legal services, and does not
allow for the sale of
ownership shares to mere passive
nonlawyer investors.
The U.K. had a similar rule barring
nonlawyer ownership, but under reforms implemented by the Legal Services Act of 2007 law firms have been able to take on a limited number of non-lawyer partners and lawyers have been
allowed to enter into a wide variety of business relationships with non-lawyers and non-lawyer owned businesses.