MDP Commission continues study, delays report until May

Jan. 17, 2001

The Multidisciplinary Practice (MDP) Commission, a 32-member body of lawyers assembled as a result of a May 5, 2001, Board of Governors resolution calling for in-depth study of MDP, delayed presenting its final report to the board on Jan. 11, 2002 until the May 2002 board meeting. A vote is scheduled for the September board meeting.

"The commission held its fourth meeting in December, which was to be the last meeting, but the commission is not finished with its work," President-elect Pat Ballman told the board. "We had hoped to make recommendations and bring them before the board today, but because we were unable to finish at our Dec. 14 meeting, we have scheduled two more meetings in February."

The commission, which has met monthly since September, divided MDP into two substantive areas: unauthorized practice of law (UPL) and MDP issues. "We are almost finished with our UPL work," said Ballman, who serves as cochair with Past President Gary Bakke. "At a prior meeting we passed a motion to create new legislation defining the practice of law and the unauthorized practice of law. The proposed legislation is much more extensive than the current statute. It provides that there be a civil cause of action in addition to the current criminal, and it offers the possibility of injunctive relief. Further, the new legislation proposes to authorize the Department of Justice in addition to district attorneys to prosecute UPL. The UPL subcommittee is refining the definitions and the language. We are confident we can finish that portion of the commission"s work in February.

"At the Dec. 14 meeting, the commission voted 11 - 7 to recommend that the rules of professional conduct be amended to allow MDP in Wisconsin. The vote proposed to allow the sharing of legal fees with nonlawyers and proposed allowing law firms to have nonlawyer partners and even majority ownership by nonlawyer professionals," said Ballman. "This is a significant vote creating broad-sweeping MDP rights in Wisconsin. At this time, the commission is still working on additional modifications to the rules of professional conduct that would clarify under what circumstances MPDs would be permitted. We will address the further refinements at either the Feb. 13 or 20 meeting."

In response to Ballman's report, Gov. Daniel Shneidman, who is a commission member, voiced concern that only 18 of the 32 commission members were present at the Dec. 14 meeting and, therefore, the vote was not representative of the entire commission. Shneidman presented a resolution requiring the commission cochairs to remind and encourage commission members to attend scheduled meetings and to conduct another vote of the MDP issue.

"I can assure you that the commission members take their job responsibility very seriously," said Bakke. "There's an enormous amount of reading material - hundreds and hundreds of pages. They've read it, studied it, and debated it extensively. The commission, just like the rest of the nation, is sharply divided on what ought to happen with respect to the MDP issue. It's reasonably predictable that you will get a majority and a minority report from the commission. It's unlikely that there's going to be a substantial majority of any quorum that is going to vote for any particular position.

"How the commission votes is not as important as the report that it generates," continued Bakke. "How the commission votes isn't going to have any control over what the board does with the issue, and what the board does may have relatively little impact on what the court does."

After lengthy discussion Shneidman's resolution failed 25 - 13.

The commission's final report will be a discussion item at the Board of Governors May meeting in Madison, and will be voted on at the September 2002 board meeting.