US lawyers vote to retain ban on multi-disciplinary practices

PARTNERSHIP: support for rules against profit-sharing and partnerships with non-lawyers

The American Bar Association (ABA) has disregarded the recommendations of its own multi-disciplinary practice (MDP) commission and voted to maintain the rules against profit-sharing and partnership with non-lawyers.At this week's ABA annual conference in New York, the ruling House of Delegates voted three to one in favour of a joint proposal by the New York, New Jersey, Illinois, Florida and Ohio state Bars to reject any rule changes.During a week of horse trading, the five Bars have formed a coalition and received strong backing from the ABA's board of governors, its policy advisory board, which makes non-binding but 'persuasive' recommendations to the House of Delegates.The five-state proposal has also dropped an earlier recommendation by New York, New Jersey and Illinois that would have allowed side-by-side arrangements between lawyers and non-lawyers.

However, the motion called on the ABA's ethics committee to draw up safeguards which allow such agreements.New York State Bar member Gary Johnson said the clause was dropped to focus on other issues.

Research is needed to see if side-by-side arrangements are 'consistent with profession's core values', he said.In a very clear indication of its feelings, the board also voted by 20 to four to disapprove the ABA commission's recommendation which would allow MDPs if lawyers retained 'the control and authority necessary to assure lawyer independence' in providing legal services.During the House debate, a call to delay the debate until more states had issued opinions on MDPs - as recommended by the MDPs commission - was rejected, while the passed motion approved the abolition of the commission.

The motion also called for stronger application of unauthorised practice of law rules.Cheryl Nero, president of the Illinois Bar, told the Gazette afterwards: 'I think that if you look at the margin of 75% in favour of our proposal from a body so geographically representative, the vote fairly represents the sentiments of US lawyers.'Michael Prigoff of the New York State Bar said: 'You cannot have legal services being controlled by non-lawyers and have the public get what they expect, which is undivided loyalty and independent judgement.'However, Sherwin Simmons, chair of the now-defunct MDP commission, said 25 states - representing more than 50% of the US Bar - had yet to respond formally on the MDP question.

He said the argument would now move to the state Bars, which actually regulate the profession although often in line with ABA guidance.'I predict that some states will relax their rules and I don't think that would be a positive position because it would create a chequerboard approach with some states doing one things and others doing another and the ABA will have provided little or no guidance,' he warned.

Sue Allen