“Everyone is already involved in MDPs,” said Roberta Tish, a family law practitioner in London who is active in international bar associations. “I need to get ‘in’ with some accountants,” she stated, because much of her legal practice involves maintenance and alimony payments, which increasingly cross national boundaries. She felt that a partnership with an accounting firm, or “accountancy,” as it is known here, would be a service to her clients.

A conference next month will train family law judges in international family law issues, such as those recently raised in the Elian Gonzalez case in the United States. If even the nuclear family is going international, then issues of globalization and partnerships among law firms and other professions, such as accounting, technology and environmental consulting, certainly are ripe.

On July 11, however, the ABA House of Delegates voted to prohibit fee-sharing with nonlawyers -- in effect, barring MDPs -- determining that fee-splitting was “inconsistent with the core values of the profession.” The vote, although not binding on individual firms and lawyers, cannot be summarily dismissed. “People pay a lot of lip service to the ABA’s positions,” noted one New Orleans-based criminal law practitioner who said he would team up with an investigative or accounting firm “if the money was good enough and if I had access to larger, prestigious clients.”

The ABA’s vote on MDPs was only one aspect of its annual meeting, of course, even though incoming ABA president Martha Barnett called MDPs the “issue du jour.” Globalization and international issues also received significant attention, driven by the increasingly international tenor of environmental and business concerns. The Business Law Section released a significant report, two years in the making, titled “Global Jurisdictional Issues Created by the Internet.” The report touched on matters ranging from alternative dispute resolution in cyberspace to international taxation.

A glance at the agenda for the London meeting revealed the legal profession’s expanding interest in things global. “Doing Business in the Global Economy of the Twenty-First Century: What’s ‘Fair’ and What’s ‘Foul’?” was a plenary session held nearly every day of the week-long conference; “The Amalgamated Transnational Firm: The Global Web of Law, Business and the Delivery of Legal Services” was another session convened in the cavernous lecture halls of the Queen Elizabeth II Conference Center near Parliament on the River Thames. Perhaps prophetically, on Wednesday, the session dealing with the issue du jour was “Multidisciplinary Practices: The Future Is Now.”

Back to Basics
The ABA gathering in the United Kingdom began with the foundation of civil law -- at Runnymede, the large grassy field where the Magna Carta was sealed in 1215 by King John, ensuring fundamental rights to his subjects in exchange for the loyalty of rebellious barons. The rights extended to the King’s subjects then are now familiar to those on both sides of the Atlantic who cherish legal freedoms: the right to a fair hearing by an independent tribunal, the right to be compensated for property seized by the state, and the broad right to justice set forth in Chapter 40. All the speakers, including Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, reflected on the common heritage shared by American and British lawyers that flows from the Magna Carta.

Attorney General Janet Reno, however, poignantly noted that many of the promises of Runnymede remain unfulfilled for those who cannot afford lawyers. She urged the assembled attorneys to “make Chapter 40 real for the United States.” In her speech over lunch to a fraction of the 7,000 convention attendees, she held up Chile’s mandatory pro bono requirement as an example. She also urged the ABA to study the creation of “neighborhood advocates” -- nonlawyers who help resolve legal disputes. The ABA consistently has opposed anything resembling the practice of law by anyone who is not a member of the bar.

Whither the ABA?
The ABA, which has about 400,000 dues-paying members, has been labeled protectionist by critics and cautious by defenders. Membership is voluntary, and ABA resolutions are not binding on members of the profession. Its sheer size and the prominence of many of its officials, however, bestow a substantial degree of influence upon the organization. Indeed, several U.K. lawyers interviewed said they feared that the British bar counterparts would follow the lead of the ABA with regard to MDPs. “Our organizations are weaker,” said one solicitor, noting that Britain has two ABA correlates -- one for solicitors and one for barristers, or litigators.

Others, however, were more sanguine about the ABA’s anti-MDP tally. “I’m sure it will change,” said Valerie E. Macadam, who runs a commercial law practice in Scotland. “The pressure of opinion is too great.” She explained that whole law firms have been absorbed by international accounting firms seeking to provide “one-stop shopping” for their clients. Lawyers eager to have access to large, prestigious clients willingly join the Big Five firms, with fee-sharing and conflict-of-interest rules determined on an ad hoc basis.

One of the most serious issues is protection of client confidentiality, a bedrock element of the lawyer-client relationship. There is no such privilege for accountants -- indeed, they have a duty to disclose many financial irregularities to supervisory bodies, such as the Securities and Exchange Commission. “It’s a problem,” acknowledged Ms. Macadam. “Our alliances today are informal. But it’s a live issue.”

As for the ABA’s vote to bar the merging of practices, Ms. Macadam called it “avoidance -- avoidance like the plague.” Perhaps this is in the tradition of the bar associations on both sides of the pond, she conceded, but then she shook her head. The profession needs guidance on the new alliances springing up. She protested: “And I thought that’s what the bar associations are for!”

Please send comments, questions and article proposals to mailto:information@smartpros.com.