The Georgetown Law Center for the Study of the Legal Profession is hosting a conference entitled "The Future of the Global Law Firm." Having not studied law firms in my prior work, I am an imposter-presenter at the conference, which has almost everyone who is anyone with respect to the study of the legal profession. The presentations have been uniformly interesting and provocative.
The participants seem to have reached a few points of consensus. First, the legal profession has changed dramatically in the past two decades and it remains under significant stress, meaning that more change is on the way. Second, the rules that constrain change (e.g., prohibition of non-lawyer ownership, rules relating to conflicts, non-competition rules) should be changed sooner rather than later. Third, the traditional legal form (partnership) is largely irrelevant to the current practice of law, even if law firms want to create an organizational structure that encourages the collegiality of a traditional partnership. Fourth, the law firms that will succeed in the future are those that get the organizational structure right.
On that last point, I have heard a lot of people talking about the need to "think carefully about the changes that will be required." This point came up during the Q&A period of my session, and I made a brief pitch for innovation among law firms. It was not the first time the case has been made for allowing firms to experiment with organizational structure, but I wanted to make the point that innovations usually do not come via deliberation. Innovations come from action. And the problem with the current system is that innovation is impeded by the profession's ethical rules.
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8345157d569e200e551e6e0f18833
Links to weblogs that reference "The Future of the Global Law Firm":
1. Posted by Cliff on April 18, 2008 @ 10:41 | Permalink
"And the problem with the current system is that innovation is impeded by the profession's ethical rules."
Gordon, that is an interesting comment. I can imagine it would promote myriad reactions throughout the legal profession.
I would love to hear an elaboration on your position.
2. Posted by Bernard Sharfman on April 18, 2008 @ 12:14 | Permalink
Hi Gordon,
When a student at Georgetown Law Center, I wrote a note entitled, Modifying Model Rule 5.4 to Allow for Minority Ownership of Law Firms by NonLawyers, Georgetown Journal of Legal Ethics, Vol. 13, No. 3 (Spring 2000). Perhaps not the best student note ever written, but it does address the fundamental issues. Surprisingly, as I was writing the piece, I found myself moving away from my initial Friedmanesque position of allowing for complete non-lawyer ownership of a law firm to one where I could see minority ownership being tolerated.
Bernie
3. Posted by Jake on April 18, 2008 @ 19:21 | Permalink
"And the problem with the current system is that innovation is impeded by the profession's ethical rules."
Like Cliff, I am a bit confounded by your remark, Gordon.
Any diminution in the legal profession's ethical rules would result in a diminution of the legal profession. Let me explain.
Lacking is any discussion of what a "profession" is. For centuries, the basic professions were limited and understood to include medicine, architecture, accounting (belatedly, after the Italians invented debits and credits in the 17th century or so), and the law.
Nowadays, according to the media, almost anything counts as a "profession," as opposed to a mere occupation. For crying out loud, dog walkers hold themselves out as members of a "profession."
Respectfully, ethical rules do matter. The law as a profession can and should stand above the fray. Lawyers and the law profs who train them should not dispute this point. Were it otherwise, lawyers might as well be carpenters. (And I can say this with no disrespect whatsoever to carpenters, having made a living as one for a good many years.)
4. Posted by Gordon Smith on April 19, 2008 @ 1:31 | Permalink
A number of the presenters at the conference had fairly deep knowledge of the professions, and you can imagine that this topic received a lot of attention. I think everyone assumes that some code of legal ethics will persist, and I wasn't suggesting that we throw the whole thing out the window. But most people at the conference seemed to agree that rules constraining organizational form should go. For much more on this topic, see Larry Ribstein's post in the TrackBack.
5. Posted by Cliff on April 19, 2008 @ 10:37 | Permalink
Gordon,
Thanks for the trackback reference. I'll have to check it out after I recover from my tax II final.
I have no opinion regarding your statement. It just aroused my curiosity, as my educational background is business...
- buy a degree on Admissions M
- Manchester United on College Foot
- LisaLing on What Ever Ha
- geoff on Co-ops to th
- J. Scott on Textbooks fo
- rh on The Vistapri
- Matt Chandler on Scenes From
- Ariella on Wisconsin's
- Jake on The Wisconsi
- Jake on Another Look
Or get posts from The Glom on
| Sun | Mon | Tue | Wed | Thu | Fri | Sat |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | |||
| 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 |
| 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 |
| 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 |
| 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 |
