President's Perspective
Where Do We Stand on MDP?
by Gary L. Bakke
With permission of the author,
let me share with you portions of an email message I received in
September: |
The Business Law Firm
Model No Longer Works for Us
"I am an officer and director of a company with
headquarters in Golden, Colo., and offices in Milwaukee and California.
From that perspective, I am concerned that the traditional business
lawyer and business law firm could disappear rapidly as today's business
environment evolves."
"We do business in the United States and Europe. We fax and email
around the globe every day. Our business literally changes week to week.
Many times, the big law firms we hire cannot keep up with developments
in our market, our technology, or our increasingly international business.
We don't have time to educate our lawyers as to the nuances of our markets.
We need experts who know more about our markets than we do. We spend
huge sums of money on hourly work that does not provide much value because
it's not integrated with financial and tax considerations. We look at
a $25,000 legal bill as a capital expenditure, and we look for a 25
percent-plus return on that capital.
"Some law firms cannot grasp that. Often, they get back to us in days
or weeks when we need help in hours. When they do get back to us, it's
in Word Perfect when we need Word and Office to be global. Some senior
partners can't even use email. The business law firm model no longer
works for us. We need integrated solutions to do business globally.
"So we look for alternatives. This is happening with companies all
over the globe. Most law firms cannot provide the strategic financial
advice and strategic partnering that other entities provide. They are
only allowed to opine. The Big Six and other consulting firms provide
much more value in tax planning, capital raising, strategic relationships,
and certain regulatory issues. Lawyers practice there, too, and they
make multiples of the income law partners make. I think business lawyers
of the future will either become micro-specialists or they will work
for consulting firms that are not burdened by the strict one-size-fits-all
regulatory model of the State Bar. It may be more efficient in the future
for us to use European consulting firms that can provide integrated
financial, banking, and legal services that are all coordinated.
"If lawyers cannot offer modern, global universal services to clients,
the CPAs and consultants will. Is it good for the legal consuming public
to NOT be able to one-stop shop? I think not.
"The Microsoft case is a good example of the problem of our increasingly
obsolete legal system. By the time the Justice Department obtains a
final order, Linux may well be the dominant operating system and Microsoft
will be two or three businesses down the road. The final result won't
matter anymore. Regulatory results are less and less relevant in a lightning-fast
world. As a former regulator, I know the frustrations firsthand, and
so does business. Why litigate when hoards of other competitors, who
are smart enough to avoid litigation, capture your market share?
"I would like to be a part of the solution, but I fear there is not
much time for debate."
Our Profession is in Crisis
That opinion, multiplied thousands of times, is a fact that we must
acknowledge and deal with. Ours is a profession in crisis, and the crisis
is all the more dangerous because few lawyers truly understand the seriousness
of the challenges we face. I believe that we may have a short window
of opportunity in which to respond. My main purpose is to convey to
you a sense of urgency.
Multidisciplinary practice has been the most contentious issue confronted
by the ABA in my memory. At the July meeting in New York, the House
of Delegates passed a very strongly anti-MDP resolution by a wide 3-1
margin. The actual resolution proposed by the ABA Commission on Multidisciplinary
Practice did not even make it to the floor. Wisconsin's delegates voted
unanimously with the majority; however, the Wisconsin delegation casts
a unanimous vote in favor of the position supported by a majority of
our delegates. I understand that sentiment was not unanimous. At our
September meeting, retired Chief Judge Patrick Sheedy, the Milwaukee
Bar Association's delegate to the ABA, told the Wisconsin Board of Governors
that the ABA House of Delegates is composed almost exclusively of very
successful, old, white males who are probably not in a very good position
to anticipate and respond to rapidly changing economic reality.
Those who saw this vote as a victory proudly proclaimed that our profession
is not for sale. Many who saw it as a defeat fear that our profession
is on the road to irrelevancy.
My view is that the MDP debate and resulting ABA resolution is a sharp
wake-up call to state and local bars that the ABA has forfeited its
leadership role for our profession, at least on this issue. Now, Wisconsin
and other states need to take a leadership role. Would I like to go
back to the profession that I joined in 1965? Certainly, I loved it.
Would I like to be 25 years old again? Sure. Neither one is going to
happen. We need to deal with reality, not nostalgia. The reality is
that many other businesses and professions are going to be doing what
we have traditionally thought was the practice of law. No, not going
to – they already are. We must respond, not only for our own self-interest,
but for the public. We need to find a way to compete in this new arena
while preserving our core values and our professionalism.
The MDP debate about whether lawyers can practice law in an entity
that is not owned and controlled by lawyers, interesting as it is, is
of little consequence if nonlawyers are permitted to do what lawyers
now do. The key question is, "What is the practice of law?" If nonlawyers
can do estate planning, of what significance is whether an estate-planning
lawyer practices in an MDP setting? If our ethical rules permit or require
a lawyer to relinquish his or her license to practice in order to do
estate planning for an accounting firm, have we advanced the interests
of either the public or the legal profession? The unintended consequence
of a no-MDP stand will be to assure that our competitors are not subject
to our training, our professional standards, or our ethical rules.
Face the Economic Realities
To date, most of the MDP debate has been conducted without reference
to the economic realities of our rapidly changing economy. We cannot
successfully ignore the obvious. The MDP Commission report to the ABA
House of Delegates crisply describes the problem:
"The forces of change are bearing down on society and the legal profession
with an unprecedented intensity. They include: continued client interest
in more efficient and less costly legal services; client dissatisfaction
with the delays and outcomes in the legal system as they affect both
dispute resolution and transactions; advances in technology and telecommunications;
globalization; new competition through services such as computerized
self-help legal software, legal advice sites on the Internet, and the
wide-reaching, stepped-up activities of bankers, investment companies,
and financial planners providing products that embody a significant
amount of legal engineering; and the strategy of Big Five professional
service firms and their smaller-sized counterparts that has resulted
in thousands of lawyers providing services to the public while denying
their accountability to the lawyer regulatory system.
"The Commission believes that the legal profession must take a proactive
role in regard to these events in order to best serve the public interest
and maintain its crucial role in the maintenance of a democratic society.
Amending the Model rules in accordance with the Commission's recommendation
is the most progressive, preservative, and practical way to accomplish
these goals. The recommendation recognizes the realities of a changing
marketplace, opens up new avenues of service to clients, responds to
the suggestions of consumer advocates, and provides new opportunities
for lawyers."
Remember the email I quoted at the beginning of this column? Can you
guess who is the author of this message? Typical business school graduate?
Someone with an anti-lawyer bias? Someone who does not understand our
ethics or their importance to our clients? It was Dan Eastman, the current
chair of the State Bar's Business Law Section. He was Wisconsin Commissioner
of Securities, now the Department of Financial Institutions, and was
a commissioner of the Public Service Commission. Think about it.
|