The Future of the Legal Profession
  • Home
  • Manifesto
  • Blawg
  • My Books
  • Book Synopsis
  • Sample chapter
  • Value Pricing
  • Store & Links
  • FAQ's
  • Loan Application Form
  • Blog

ABS's - We Don't know what they are - But we Oppose them Anyway...

18/5/2010

0 Comments

 
Alternative Business Structures (ABS) are not a new creation.  They started life just after the second world war in Germany when lawyers and tax accountants set up in business together. 

Since that time they have become common in other European countries and have migrated to France, Canada, Australia, Hong Kong, Singapore and more recently in India and other parts of Asia.

Also known as Multidisciplinary Practices or MDP's the definition of one is; a partnership, professional corporation, or other association or entity that includes lawyers and nonlawyers and has as one, but not all, of its purposes the delivery of legal services to a client(s) other than the MDP itself or that holds itself out to the public as providing nonlegal, as well as legal, services. It includes an arrangement by which a law firm joins with one or more other professional firms to provide services, and there is a direct or indirect sharing of profits as part of the arrangement.

The most prolific academic writing in this area appears to be Professor Mary Daly who collaborated on a voluminous tome on the subject called Multidisciplinary Practice; Staying Competitive and Adapting to Change.  What's of interest to me is that she wrote two complete chapters on the legal profession's opposition to change, citing that this would be the biggest challenge of all. 

Given the recent events with The Law Society of Scotland debates, she's not wrong.  In fact, you don't need to read the whole book as the clue to what to do is in the title.

Also, the 1982 Nobel Prize winning economist George Stigler (whose son David is a lawyer) wrote about the regulation of law in a 1971 article called The Theory of Economic Regulation where he stated that "...as a rule, regulation is acquired by the industry and is designed and operated primarily for its benefit.  The actual purpose of regulations is to provide special privileges for the powerful interest groups that want to restrict competition and raise prices; so regulations hurt the public."

Interesting stuff considering that the main thrust of the opposition is that the lawyers who are against ABS have a perception that they prevent a non-lawyer from exercising undue influence over the independence of a lawyer who is representing a client and that this somehow unduly affects the protection of the client for the pursuit of profit.

In the same year Stigler won his Nobel Prize, the American Bar Association (ABA) formed the Kutak Commission to try to relax these prohibitions, but the ABA's own committee then rejected the proposals of that commission:  Here are the objections they raised:

1. The Commission proposal would permit accounting firms and others to open law firms in direct competition with traditional law firms.

2. Non-lawyer ownership of law firms would interfere with the lawyers' professional independence.

3. Non-lawyer ownership would destroy the lawyer's ability to be a professional regardless of the economic cost; and

4. The proposed change would have a fundamental but unknown effect on the legal profession.

Not dissimilar to the recent objections that we have seen from those in the anti-ABS camp in Scotland

The common denominator of these objections is that they clearly indicate the mind-set of a protected guild and not that of professionals operating in a free and competitive marketplace.  The protection of customers and the pursuit of profits are not something that are or should be at odds with one another.  You could argue that they are in fact a perfect alignment of business interest; and if not, then they most certainly should be.

But let's look at each of the objections in turn:

1. The Commission proposal would permit accounting firms and others to open law firms in direct competition with traditional law firms - Why is competition objected to?  We know that consumers benefit from competition, that is surely not in doubt and any action that restricts competition is therefore a net harm to the very consumers that the legal profession purports to protect.

2. Non-lawyer ownership of law firms would interfere with the lawyers' professional independence - Also strange since prospective non lawyer owners could be subject to rules of independence.

3. Non lawyer ownership would destroy the lawyer's ability to be a professional regardless of the economic cost - pure exaggeration as there should be no correlation between ownership rules and conducting oneself as a professional subjected to a code of ethics and principles.

4. The proposed change would have a fundamental but unknown effect on the legal profession -  Surely the strangest objection of all as it effectively states "We don't know what the effects are going to be but we oppose them anyway!" 

I work in Intellectual property and almost every new business idea is a model or an experiment.  As long as no laws are broken, private individuals and companies must be allowed to test their ideas in a free marketplace.

Imagine the argument against BT and a flotation because it would open up The Post Office to competition for their telephone services and it's effects would be unknown! A ludicrous suggestion and an unworthy argument coming from professionals who allegedly act in the interests of consumers.

ADP's should be allowed and we should leave the consumers to decide their fate. 

If they turn out to be unviable then traditional law firms will have nothing to fear. 
If on the other hand they do turn out to be a success, then it will have proved that they work and are therefore in the consumers' best interests; which is exactly why Stigler won a Nobel Prize nearly 30 years ago.
0 Comments

Turkeys won't vote for Christmas

22/4/2010

0 Comments

 
Solicitors voted against the introduction of alternative business structures (ABS) in Scotland at a special general meeting of the Law Society of Scotland yesterday.

The vote, including proxy votes, was 1817 in favour of a motion from the Scottish Law Agents Society against ABS as proposed in the Legal Services (Scotland) Bill, with 1290 against the motion, and five abstentions.

A compromise amendment on the introduction of “Tesco Law” had been proposed by McGrigors’ managing partner, Richard Masters.

The firm sought to remove the part of the SLAS motion declaring that external ownership of legal practices would be reserved to those qualified as solicitors, and state instead that majority ownership should be in the hands of such persons, "or persons so qualified together with other persons who are regulated professional owner managers of that business".

However, the amendment was rejected.

Of course it was...can't have the public getting a better service. We're lawyers after all. 

We studied for years and deserve to have our monopoly protected. Yawn.

I said it before and I'll say it again, legal reform will not be driven by what lawyers do
or do not want, it will be driven by economics and social change.  People needing
legal services will vote with their wallets and the firms that deliver the best service
will get the most business.

All this internal bickering is self-serving and pointless.

Can lawyers prevent change? No. Their strength could "oppose" the Bill, but so what?

Just as "money" finds the friendliest place to live, so too will consumers find the
friendliest place to do business.

Spend time and effort on that and christmas WILL be worth having.
0 Comments

Phew...What a Close One!

8/4/2010

0 Comments

 
Scotland’s solicitors have voted narrowly in favour of legal services reform – by a margin of just 24.

In the first referendum question, 2,245 members of the Law Society of Scotland voted to support the current policy in favour of alternative business structures being introduced to Scotland – as long as there are appropriate safeguards – while 2,221 voted against.

The second question, on whether Law Society should apply to be a regulator of ABS, 3,622 solicitors – 81 per cent – voted in favour, while 844 voted against.

In what was the biggest turnout in a Law Society referendum, a total of 4,466 solicitors – 43 per cent of the society’s membership – voted in a secret ballot which closed at midday on Wednesday 7 April.

Ian Smart, president of the Law Society of Scotland, said: “The narrowness of the result clearly illustrates just how the issue has brought out widely divergent views across the profession.


0 Comments

Law Society Vote Delayed

6/4/2010

0 Comments

 
I didn't post the "For" vote argument and link as the vote has been delayed.

The Law Society of Scotland has announced that the reconvened special general meeting on alternative business structures (ABS) will be held at the Sheraton Grand Hotel in Edinburgh on Friday 16 April at 10 am.

The initial part of the SGM on Friday 25 March was adjourned to allow for further discussions between the Law Society, the Scottish Law Agents Society and others.

The SGM was held following a requisition by SLAS, which called for a debate over its concerns about proposals to allow external ownership of alternative business structures in the legal services market.

Ian Smart, president of the Law Society of Scotland, said: “I can confirm that discussions are ongoing, but it was important that we set a date for the reconvened meeting.

“The venue has now been secured and I hope that as many of our members as possible can make it along – especially those who took the time to come along to the SGM on 25 March – to continue the meeting and participate in the continuing debate.”

A formal notice to all members will be issued this week.


0 Comments

    Author

    After many years paying lawyers,I became one in 2005 Just in time for the largest upheaval in the law since records began. Brilliant. Exiting times ahead.

    Disclaimer.  The thoughts, ideas and comments on this Blawg ("Blawg - a legal Blog) are my own and not to be confused (unless otherwise stated) with anyone else and certainly not of anyone in the Firm where I used to work and they are not the views of the firm where I used to work.

    Tweets by @ray_mclennan

    Archives

    April 2019
    December 2018
    September 2018
    August 2018
    April 2018
    September 2017
    November 2016
    September 2015
    January 2015
    May 2014
    November 2013
    September 2013
    August 2013
    July 2013
    June 2013
    May 2013
    April 2013
    March 2013
    February 2013
    January 2013
    December 2012
    November 2012
    October 2012
    September 2012
    August 2012
    July 2012
    June 2012
    May 2012
    April 2012
    March 2012
    February 2012
    January 2012
    December 2011
    November 2011
    October 2011
    September 2011
    August 2011
    July 2011
    June 2011
    May 2011
    April 2011
    March 2011
    February 2011
    January 2011
    December 2010
    November 2010
    October 2010
    September 2010
    August 2010
    July 2010
    June 2010
    May 2010
    April 2010
    March 2010
    February 2010
    January 2010
    December 2009
    November 2009
    December 2008

    Categories

    All
    10 Rules That Govern Groups
    10 Things That Don\'t Matter
    10 Things That Matter
    3 Choices
    Abs
    Accounts
    Advertising
    Appreciation
    Apps
    Bentley Cars
    Budget
    Cards For All
    Change
    Change Hints
    Charities
    Clay Shirky
    Close Vote
    Coaching
    Competition
    Confirmation Bias
    Conformity
    Creative Destruction
    Customer Service
    Deloitte
    Depression
    Disruptive Technologies
    Droids
    Earning Capacity Of Lawyers
    Economics
    Elephant
    Entrepreneurs
    Facebook
    Fee Income
    Fees
    Frogs
    Fti
    Gene Poool
    George Marshall
    Getting It
    Glasgow Bar Association
    Govan Law Centre
    Government Initiatives
    Group Psychology
    Iphone App
    It Based Law
    John
    KPI\'s
    Laptop Lawyer
    Law As A Commodity
    Law Firm Broker
    Law Firm Start Up
    Law Society
    Leadership
    Legal Docs
    Legal Education
    Legal Firms\' Accounts 2009
    Legal Services Bill
    Legal Websites
    Marketing
    Mdp
    Measurement
    Mental Health
    Mergers
    Minimum Wage
    Modernise Or Die
    More Sales
    Musings
    New Technology
    Office Politics
    Online Docs
    Overcharging
    Partnerships
    Pep
    Perceived Indifference
    Pkf
    Pro Bono Work
    Pro-Bono Work
    Pwc
    Royal Faculty Of Procurators
    Rss Feed
    Sales
    Self Esteem
    Self-esteem
    Self Improvement
    Seo Strategies
    Seth Godin
    Socialism
    Social Media
    Solutions
    Substance Abuse
    Tax
    Tesco Law
    The Firm
    Trainees
    Tribes
    Trust
    Turnaround Time
    Twitter
    Two Killers
    Value Pricing
    Values
    Verasage
    Verasage Institute
    Websites
    Who Gets It?
    You Tube

    View my profile on LinkedIn

    RSS Feed

    Buy1GIVE1 - Transaction Based Giving