The issue du jour of the US legal profession is multi-disciplinary practices (MDPs).

It should be a prominent issue in this country because of the business opportunities that MDPs present.

It should be but it is not.MDPs are generally considered in the context of the Big Five accountancy firms which are entering legal practice as a new service area.

All of the Big Five currently refer to themselves as professional service firms not as accounting firms.The Law Society tried to whip up some enthusiasm for debate and, as is so often the case, it was underwhelmed by the total indifference from the solicitors' profession, receiving only a handful of responses on a subject which should be burning right through everyone's business plans and draft budgets.Perhaps it is not widely known that in the US, the American Bar Association commission on MDPs recommended unanimously in June that professional conduct rules be changed to permit lawyers to practise in firms that include other professionals.

If this unanimous recommendation is passed by the House of Delegates and approved by individual states, the recommendation will open the way to both new forms of co-operation in client service delivery and to the explicit entry of major accountancy firms into the market for legal services.It is important to note that the parties that appeared before the ABA Commission included many clients of law firms who argued strongly in favour of having a one-stop shop.

Imagine such a shop for personal services including financial planning, estate planning, tax preparation in a setting that includes service professionals in partnership with lawyers but all operating under the obligation of the legal profession rules and regulations.In the international debate around MDPs several key issues have been raised:-- Unauthorised practice of law.

Rules and statues generally seek to protect the public against the practice of law by individuals who are not licensed.

The argument here is what constitutes the practice of law? In the UK this has been addressed by identif ying service areas as either reserved to lawyers or unreserved, in which case either non-lawyers or lawyers can perform them so long as the status of the non-lawyer providers is disclosed to the client.-- Lawyer independence.

This is a practice rule issue, which deals with the ban on splitting fees or profit sharing.

The financial considerations in a lawyer-client relationship -- mainly the lawyer's interest in collecting a fee -- remain the same whether the vehicle is an MDP or a wholly-owned practice.Conflict of interest.

Here the argument is that MDPs present conflicts of interest based on the differences in the fundamental roles and functions between auditors and lawyers.

Auditors have to blow whistles but lawyers, of course, are to secure client confidentiality.

Supporters of MDPs argue that law firms frequently represent clients with conflicting interest by obtaining waivers from clients and building Chinese walls.

Lawyers can own ancillary businesses so why can they not in an MDP business have similar Chinese walls between themselves and their co-owner?Obviously, decisions will be made but the profession in this country should wake up to the realisation that an MDP is not some two-headed monster but is actually a business opportunity which should be embraced to allow firms both small and large to move forward into the 21st century.The legal profession in this country has a tremendous opportunity to change the way it provides services to all of its clients for the 21st century.

Solicitors should not be waiting like frightened rabbits for the accountants to come along and take total control.

Solicitors should be leading the way and in so doing ensure that they control the change.