Not exact matches
The «protectionist instincts» that I and others have are (1) to protect the independence of the bar (sure to be lost eventually under
nonlawyer ownership), (2) to protect the health of the legal marketplace (sure to be badly harmed by the cartelization of ABS (see the 5 % commissions charged by the cartel of real estate agencies who still control the vast majority of the realty market, and especially see the ridiculously high costs of dealing with the American title insurance industry where four companies have upwards of 87 % of the conveyancing and title insurance market after first decimating the real estate bar with predatory pricing and other unfair business practices)-RRB-, and (3) to protect the public
from those ravages.
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.
In the United States, lawyers are prohibited
from splitting legal fees with
nonlawyers and therefore banned
from sharing
ownership of a law firm.
Without trade - offs to our personal injury law practice, as a result of a new company structure providing a larger capital base in Australia and the UK, we are now able to offer a wider range of other consumer services including services that critics of
nonlawyer ownership claim are the sort of «less profitable services;» that
nonlawyer owned firms would stay away
from such as: employment law, wills, conveyancing, family law and criminal law.
The law governing lawyers, that prohibits lawyers
from sharing legal fees with
nonlawyers and
from directly or indirectly transferring to
nonlawyers ownership or control over entities practicing law, should not be revised.