Sentences with phrase «for nonlawyer ownership»

The reason that England and Wales as well as Australia adopted PMBR is because their systems were changed to allow for nonlawyer ownership.

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.

Not exact matches

Still, a draft proposal to modify the nonlawyer ownership rule to be similar to the D.C. program was released for public comment.

[2] For this reason, some have argued, the door to nonlawyer ownership should not be opened «even a crack.»

Having experienced it here in the UK, I think that they should see how other countries, like the UK, work because nonlawyer ownership has worked for my firm.

Save for one exception, the District of Columbia is the only jurisdiction in the U.S. that under very limited circumstances actually permits ownership or management of a law firm by nonlawyers.

And allowing for minority nonlawyer ownership of law firms might be just a preliminary phase in ultimately allowing for majority nonlawyer ownership.

In sum, even though the Report mentions alternative structures only briefly, and expressly advocates for only a limited form of them (minority nonlawyer ownership) in a lukewarm manner, a close reading the Report suggests that its authors in fact enthusiastically support alternative structures.

It was easy for us to set up their because of the similar regulatory regime that permits nonlawyer ownership.

In this context, the Commission called for comments on the «potential benefits and risks associated with ABS,» as well as «evidence or other input» on the relative advantages and disadvantages of different types of ABS (for example, with limits on the percentage of nonlawyer ownership and / or multidisciplinary practices).

In essence, the options were either (1) limited lawyer / nonlawyer partnerships with a cap on nonlawyer ownership and the nonlawyers would be subject to a «fit to own» test, (2) lawyer / nonlawyer partnerships with no cap on nonlawyer ownership but the firm could provide legal services only (no multidisciplinary services) and the nonlawyer partner (s) would be required to perform services for the firm (they could not be passive investors; as discussed further below, this option was considered to be the «DC approach»), or (3) the same as Option (2) except the firm could offer multidisciplinary services.

At its meeting on April 12 - 13, 2012, [40] the [Commission] decided not to propose changes to the ABA policy prohibiting nonlawyer ownership of law firms... The Commission considered the pros and cons, including thoughtful comments that the changes recommended in the [December 2, 2011 paper] were both too modest and too expansive, and concluded that the case had not been made for proceeding with even a form of nonlawyer ownership that is more limited than the D.C. model.

««Ethics 20/20 Commission Suspends Campaign to Draft a Proposal on Nonlawyer Ownership of Law Firms» Main Harvard law student group singles out big firms for their representations»

[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.

Those issues relate to virtual law practice, choice of law problems associated with conflicts of interest and nonlawyer ownership, and domestic practice authority for inbound foreign lawyers.