"No" to Non-Lawyer Ownership of Law Firms?
See the following ABA article on non-lawyer ownership of law firms here. What do other attorneys think about changing this rule? It would seem that the pros might include expanding the availability of legal services for more clients at a lower cost (like a "google"-supported law firm), but might also negatively impact a firm's focus if the attorneys have to respond to non-attorney investors who want a 50% return and are only getting a 25% return on their investment.
I also understand that DC currently permits non-lawyers to own a firm (according to the ABA article); any DC practitioners doing this today?
Replies to This Discussion
-
Top DogPermalink Reply by Nathaniel Fick on -
I will launch a free-form reply, admittedly not thought through to any "logical conclusion."
To me, it is sad, and a terrible loss to citizens and to the profession. If only for the supposed "independence" of a licensed attorney, along with personal accountability for his actions, this is another obscene step alongside the wholly owned law practices of insurance carriers, without what I would wish as a solid informed consent to those citizens relegated to these lawyer-employees of a company with a financial interest in the outcome of the litigation. There, we see a gutting of independent opinion, a gutting of autonomy of thought, of time, of opinion. ADJUSTERS end up with greater say than the attorneys. And clients are surely not properly instructed from the outset of who these "dual-hat" attorneys really represent.
Do not be fooled. This is not benign. 7th Amendment will turn to ashes ~
Top Content
© 2012 Created by Zest SMS.
