FOR RELEASE MONDAY, JUNE 12, 2000
CONTACT: Howard Brill, Vincent Foster Professor of Legal Ethics and Professional Responsibility
(501) 575-5358, [email protected]
Melissa Blouin, science and research communications manager
(501) 575-5555, [email protected]
LAW PROFESSOR LAYS OUT PROS AND CONS OF MULTI-DISCIPLINARY PRACTICES
FAYETTEVILLE, Ark. -- As lawyers across the country debate the merits and drawbacks of lawyers forming partnerships with non-lawyer professionals, a University of Arkansas law professor sits on the committee that will recommend a course for Arkansas. The decision could potentially affect client confidentiality, conflicts of interest and other legal ethics issues.
Howard Brill, Vincent Foster Professor of Legal Ethics and Professional Responsibility, and nine other Arkansas lawyers will make recommendations to the Arkansas Bar Association this summer on whether or not to change current laws to allow multi-disciplinary practices (MDPs) in Arkansas.
Such committees usually study historical precedent to inform their recommendations, but in the case of MDPs there are only anecdotes and analogies to medicine.
"There are no precise examples," Brill said. "We're charting new territory here."
The Arkansas advisory committee is studying the current rules and the proposals to change those rules to allow MDPs.
"The current rules say that lawyers cannot share legal fees with non-lawyers," Brill said. This rule was designed to protect the public in matters of confidentiality and conflicts of interest. An accountant and an insurance agent, for instance, are not legally bound to keep their client's information confidential, but a lawyer must do so. So if an insurance agent in partnership with a lawyer had access to a client's records, the agent potentially could be subpoenaed to testify in a court of law against the firm's client.
Also, an accountant may do business with companies that have conflicting legal interests, but a lawyer can only defend a client on one side of a legal dispute. They must have undivided loyalties to their clients to be effective.
"While an insurance agent may represent two companies who are opposing each other, an attorney may not engage in such a conflict," Brill said.
Despite concerns about changing the rules, lawyers do have reasons for considering multi-disciplinary practice. In the past 20 years, real estate brokers, divorce counselors and accountants have invaded the boundaries of the legal profession. They have taken over some services that lawyers used to provide, leaving lawyers with few clients in those areas. As people seek convenience and "one-stop shopping," small-town lawyers run the risk of losing their practices unless they have the option of joining non-lawyers in business, MDP supporters argue.
Proponents of MDPs say they will serve the public more efficiently if a lawyer, an accountant, an insurance agent and a social worker can provide services under the same roof.
"At a diagnostic clinic, you can get all the services you need in one building. Why can't business practices be provided in one building where you bring lots of people together?" That's the MDP supporters' argument, Brill said.
Many lawyers who oppose MDPs see insurmountable ethical issues at stake. They believe the legal profession's standards would be compromised by allowing lawyers to share fees with non-lawyers.
MDP proponents, however, believe that built-in safeguards will help avoid such legal violations.
The American Bar Association is expected to vote on this issue in August. The decision will set a precedent, but states will have to make their own decisions about MDPs, Brill said.
After the committee makes a recommendation, it's up to the Arkansas Supreme Court to uphold or change the rules governing Arkansas lawyers. It may be some time before the court makes any decision at all.
"There are a lot of issues at stake here," Brill said. "It's going to be a few years before this all shakes down."
# # #
RSS