Multi-disciplinary Practices

 

     This is a controversial issue in the state bars--basically the issue is whether lawyers and non-lawyers should work together as equals and share profits. Many legal futurists believe that MDPs are inevitable. Partnerships with non-lawyers occur in several different contexts: lawyers and accountants doing tax work, realtors and lawyers doing real estate, and in the family law context with social workers, counselors, etc.. Before pursuing this, investigate what your state bar has to say. Some state bars have had dramatic negative reactions to the concept of multi-disciplinary practices. It may be possible to create a hybrid organization by designing something and taking it to your state bar for an ethical opinion--more than one proposal to the bar may be necessary before you find an organizational structure that works.

 

     Even if you cannot have a true partnership with a non-lawyer, you can create professional relationships with other professionals in your community. For example, the Collaborative Divorce model (www.collaborativedivorce.com) utilizes counselors and accountants to assist families in the divorce process. A CPA and attorney are natural collaborators on tax issues, etc. Many business visionaries predict that MDP is going to have to be approved by local bar organizations or that lawyers will lose large market shares to other professions.

 

 PS:  The idea of having a MDP seemed so clearly a positive one until we got this email with another perspective:

I noticed on your website that MDP was mentioned.  I'm on the

Bar Association committee to study MDP in the state of Washington.

I'm in the odd position of being in favor of holistic practice but

being very opposed to all current MDP proposals.  I thought

I'd run by you why I think MDP as currently configured is a

Trojan Horse for the complete de-professionalization of

the practice of law, all done in the name of holistic multidisciplinary

services.

Under current rules, lawyers can work with as many other

disciplines as desired.  I work with numerous professions daily,

and we each earn our hourly fee.   What's prohibited is lawyers

combining to form partnerships with nonlawyers.     Literally

speaking, ethical rule changes are not required to have

holistic practices, only to *share profits on* holistic practices. 

My bottom Line:   There are types of MDP that would enhance

the lawyer's role as fiduciary.   Example: holistic divorce practice

with social workers and psychiatrists (such as yours).  But there

are also many (and possibly would spread fast) forms of MDP

that undermine the lawyer's role as fiduciary, such as lawyers

teaming up with stockbrokers and insurance companies to

use the confidential information obtained in the attorney client

relationship to cross-sell services that are essentially unrelated

to why the client sought legal representation in the first place. 

This is where abuses would occur, and I'm afraid the incentive

to use the attorney-client relationship as a marketing relationship

would be huge, since people essentially are becoming immune

to advertising, there being so much of it. 

 

What I see through MDP as currently configured is the explosion

of prepaid legal service plans by insurance companies, who then

"own" the clients (because clients will always call their "legal HMO"

first) and sell those clients to us attorneys, charging referral fees

for the same, because surely referral fees must be legalized if

MDPs can share referrals internally and take profits off of them.

(i.e. It would be unfair for a large financial MDP to capture profits 
off of an internal referral while a small practitioner can't get a referral
fee for sending someone to a local insurance agent, for example.....)

 

So, I'm looking at ways to allow holistic practice but only under

heightened fiduciary standards, to prevent clients from being

abused.      I'm sad that "Multidisciplinary Practice" isn't called

instead "referral fees without standards practice".    Also, opening

law firms to outside capital flows would just lead to the same

effects we see in the "outside" economy:  globalization, takeovers,

consolidation, etc.     If we are to share profits at all with outsiders

in partnerships, we should insure that very high fiduciary standards

are in place for ethics, and those currently are completely absent

in the MDP proposals.  Paul Lehto, Everett, WA

 

 

Return to Transformational Law Main Page

 

  Go to Next Approach