When the American Bar Association (ABA) launched its investigation into multi-disciplinary partnerships (MDPs) in August 1998, it was widely assumed that the MDPs bandwagon was unstoppable.

But more than a year on, with the ABA delaying a decision on the report of its MDPs commission for another 12 months, the tone of the debate has changed.Boosted by the growing likelihood that the ABA will reject the proposal to allow MDPs, opponents of MDPs have redoubled their efforts.

At the International Bar Association business law conference in Barcelona last month, the likes of Ramon Mullerat, former president of the Council of Bars and Law Societies of Europe, and Hans-Jurgen Hellwig, vice-president of the German Bar, gave impassioned speeches against MDPs to rapturous applause.It is not just the ABA's delay which has given them heart.

Mr Hellwig listed a slew of recent events in which accountants and merchant bankers trying to get around apparent conflicts of interest were stopped in their tracks by the authorities.

No case illustrated this more vividly than the House of Lords' now-famous ruling in the Prince Jefri case, which c ast doubt on the use of ad hoc Chinese walls to insulate conflicts of interest.The ABA's president-elect, Martha Barnett, said in Barcelona that she thought the MDPs ban would remain because of fears that non-lawyers might not protect the core values of lawyers, such as avoiding conflicts of interest.

She also pointed to a letter from the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), which she said could be the single most important contribution to the debate.

In it, the commission said it had no position on MDPs.

'[But] the SEC has long made clear that its independence rules prohibit an auditor from certifying the financial statements of a client with which his firm also has an attorney-client relationship.' If an MDP cannot offer a one-stop service in the kind of big-ticket work done under the SEC's auspices, then the clamour for them might be significantly reduced.The position elsewhere is confused.

The Big Five firms of accountants continue to expand, with countries such as Australia and Canada moving towards facilitating MDPs.

However, a long-running debate within the Council of Bars and Law Societies of Europe seems likely to end with little change to its opposition to MDPs.

The International Bar Association has adopted a neutral position, calling for strict regulation of any lawyers working within MDPs.However, the debate continues to be dominated by the aspirations of five massive firms of accountants to build global legal practices.

As a result, the debate has arguably been skewed because there are legitimate grounds for suggesting that lawyers and accountants are incompatible.

The former has a duty to the client while the latter has a duty to the public.

As well as the SEC's views, a Dutch court ruled in early 1997 against a claim by two of the Big Five that the Dutch Bar's ban on MDPs was illegal, saying it was justified in the public interest, in part because of the different roles of lawyers and accountants.

This case has been referred to the European Court of Justice, but a hearing is not expected until the end of 2000 at the earliest.In its preliminary report, the Law Society's MDPs working party suggests that MDPs' application stretches beyond these five players.

In proposing to investigate an interim solution of allowing 'linked' partnership of lawyers and non-lawyers to share fees, it says: 'Although at present this model is mainly used by the Big Five in developing global legal partnerships, it could be used in the high street with solicitors forming alliances or linkages with other local professional service providers - or even Boots plc.' The point is, solicitors need not wait to be taken over.

One contributor to the Society's consultation on the issue said: 'As a high street practitioner, I see no viable future unless we can combine with other professions/service providers to form one-stop shops for areas of work.' The idea of a probate lawyer forming an MDP with a funeral director may have once been a joke about horizontal integration, but now it is taken a lot more seriously.

Two thirds of the 272 respondents to the consultation favoured relaxing the MDPs ban.The pressures on the Law Society - which last week voted to start down the road to allowing MDPs - are manifold.

There is the international scene, where English firms are those the Big Five want to compete with and the Society is seen as a liberaliser.

But the other UK and Irish law societies - minor figures globally - recently told their English counterpart that they wanted the Society to keep its ban on MDPs, fearing the impact on them if it d id not.

Then again, groups as diverse as the City of London Law Society and the Sole Practitioners Group support MDPs.

The government has also taken an interest.

The Society's Council was told last week that: 'The government generally takes the view that, subject to suitable safeguards, MDPs should be permitted.

Pressure varies, dependent on the government's other priorities.

MDPs is probably not a key issue for the government at the moment, although the director-general of fair trading mentioned new powers under the Competition Act (in force March 2000) recently in relation to MDPs.'To some, the MDPs debate is a battle for the legal profession's soul.

Mr Mullerat told delegates in Barcelona that lawyers who merged with non-lawyers risked becoming businessmen.

'Ethical businessmen perhaps, but not professionals,' he said.

'It is the traditional profession of independent lawyering that is at stake.' Some US lawyers fear MDPs compromise the role of lawyers in the administration of justice.But however justified they may be, the likelihood is that MDPs are coming regardless.

The Lord Chancellor's advisory committee on legal education and conduct said in a report on MDPs in July that the status quo was unlikely to be maintained.

'Commercial opportunities and pressures, both national and international, will lead to more diverse and integrated structures for the provision of legal services, interwoven with those of other professions.'As supporters point out, many lawyers already work in multi-disciplinary environments.

Some firms offer financial services, estate agency and employee benefits advice, to name but three non-legal add-ons to legal practices.

In-house lawyers are arguably the original multi-disciplinary practitioners and proclaim their ability to provide their employers with independent advice despite their employment status.

The fears remain, but perhaps the challenge for lawyers now is not so much how to stop MDPs, but how to take advantage of them.