Is nonlawyer ownership of law firms long overdue? Or a bad idea?
This week, we noted that until Monday, May 2, the ABA is seeking comments on an issues paper that considers the risks and benefits of alternative business structures allowing nonlawyer ownership of law firms—which is currently permitted in the United Kingdom, Australia, and to a limited extent in Washington, D.C.
Nonlawyer ownership could increase capital for law firms and help them strengthen their management teams with nonlawyers. But there are concerns that nonlawyer ownership will threaten lawyers’ independent professional judgment.
The debate has been raging for years. This week, we’d like to ask you: Is nonlawyer ownership of law firms long overdue? Or a bad idea?Bad idea? Injecting more money into the system, and this in the form of non lawyer ownership? Yeah, that's a bad idea.
Most of the lawyers replying to the query agree that it's a bad idea.
Let's hope this idea fails.
No comments:
Post a Comment