Journalists frequently ring the Law Society to ask 'whatever happened to the MDP consultation paper?' The American Bar Association's (ABA) recent report on multi-disciplinary partnerships (MDPs) has prompted more calls suggesting the Law Society is the tortoise to the ABA hare.

What's been happening?-- MDPs have been made one of the Society's strategic priorities;-- We have analysed the responses to our consultation 'Multi-disciplinary practices: Why? Why Not?';-- A new MDP working party has now been set up, timed to coincide with publication of the ABA report.What of the consultation? The quality of many responses was high and will provide a useful resource for the working party.

I thank those who took the time to respond.

At 272 the number of responses was disappointingly low -- too low to allow us to draw any firm conclusions on the basis of the figures.If a statistical analysis of the responses tells us anything it is that we would not appear to be going against the wishes of the profession in developing proposals to permit MDPs.

At least 75% of responses from firms with more than 11 partners thought that the rules should be liberalised, while 77% of responses from solicitors employed by non-solicitors (a significant group of purchasers of legal services) thought the same.The responses validated the working party's objective 'to take forward the review of MDPs to ensure that the restrictions on the business vehicles/organisations through which solicitors practise are the minimum necessary in the public interest and do not stand in the way of solicitors' business development planning'.

This objective marries the public interest in choice with the profession's desire to develop competitive, client-facing businesses.

On the other hand the responses did not show that the Society is wrong in seeking to identify and preserve key client protections.

The challenge is to find the right balance.The consultation paper was comprehensive.

We deliberately set out to help the profession understand the problems and possible solutions.

There is anecdotal evidence that smaller firms may not have replied because they saw it simply as a City/global firm issue.

This may be because the legal press coverage of MDPs almost always involves the Big Five accountants.

However, it is untrue.

There are many examples of possible MDPs for the high street.

Consider the benefit for the elderly client to find, in one place, legal, tax, investment and health care advice.The new working party begins its work with an open mind.

Like the ABA we believe that the fact that MDPs could benefit both clients and the profession puts the burden of proof on those who wish to maintain the current restrictions.

The consultation paper used two models for possible MDPs but the working party will start with a blank sheet of paper and see if new avenues can be explored.

We will consider the models used in other jurisdictions and the new model proposed by the ABA commission.

We do, however, have to take into account the legal requirements for the regulation of solicitors in this jurisdiction.

For example, in America the unauthorised practice of law is an offence.

In this country only a limited number of activities are reserved to qualified lawyers.Although it is early days I believe that the working party will want to start by considering what it should propose as the Law Society's long term goal in relation to MDPs.

How far should the relaxations go? We can then define what legislative and regulatory change is required in order to reach that goal and how to deliver the proper client protections.

If legislation is needed we will see if any liberalisation is achievable in the short term while we pursue our ultimate goal.These proposals must be developed in open debate as there are many stakeholders with an interest in this issue.

The working party will then have to seek support for the proposals from the Council of the Law Society.