Page 13 - MDPs - Chapter 14 - Multidisciplinayr Practice and Partnershps
P. 13
single brand name. The strategy is the same for large multinational law firms that have become MDPs
that generally elect to retain their other professional services in-house.26 The MDO also permits
establishing a secondary name brand that can be used by the member firms but without the ethical
constraints discussed throughout this treatise.
One-stop shopping is about choice. Ironically, at the same time the Big 5 are explaining the benefits of the
one-stop shopping, the in-house MDP model may actually be undermining the very purpose of expanding
choices to clients. The reason is that the only services that are available are from the professionals in the
MDP itself. If a grocery store only offered its own brand names, it would not be a one-stop shop since its
capacity to offer products is limited. The same limitation applies to the Big 5.
The MDO, where each member individually focuses their practices and services on a few competencies,
can offer the public and businesses even greater choices at a reduced cost. The MDO model is likely to be
very competitive since it would permit a greater amount of tailoring of the services to meet the exact
needs of the client by offering an expanded palette of choices. Growth of the available services would be
unlimited since each professional entity manages itself. New services can be readily added to further
increase choice.
The MDO can go beyond the Big 5 model by creating opportunities for clients to become a de facto part
of the system.27 While the existing MDPs’ one-stop shopping is based upon the professional gatekeeper
at the MDP who selects other professionals, why is this necessary? The MDO retains the gatekeeper
professional but it could empower the corporate client to shop directly for services that are contained in
the MDO. The client becomes almost an associate member. This latter opportunity is likely to have great
appeal to the in-house corporate counsel who wants to select the best professionals from among a range
of professionals who have already been screened by a reputable organization.
While the Big 5 may have ethical and regulatory issues, they are well organized. On the other hand, the
MDO will face organization and structural issues when they are created. To achieve their objectives,
standards and rules must be adopted by the MDO to apply to all the members when working with clients.
Since the MDO professional team will be judged on the same performance standards as an in-house MDP,
these standards are going to require significant amounts of work. New skills will need to be developed as
the professional roles converge with that of managerial roles.
§ 14.04 MDO Models
In the beginning of this chapter, the two hypothetical examples were introduced and have been referred
to in a number of places. Before evaluating the ethical issues, additional detail on the models would be
useful. They are the I-MDO and the R-MDO.
[1]—An Independent MDO (I-MDO)
26 There are a number of firms that have MDPs, including Womble, Carlyle, Sandridge and Rice (Technology), Littler and Mendelson
(Employment), Hale Dorr (Technology), Howey Simons (Employment), Arnold and Porter (Lobbying), to name a few.
27 The best- known example of this is the Dupont model. In 1996, Dupont had employed over 300 law firms. They decided that this fragmentation
was not cost effective and derided to reduce the number to 30 firms. Among the criteria was the technology. As part of the process, in-house
counsel took on the role of selection of attorneys for each part of the litigation or transactions. Competitors were sometimes hired to provide
specific parts of the services. The corporation likewise would select the specific lawyers. Law and Disorder, Redherring (Apr. 1999) at
http://www.redhearring.com/may/issue65/news-law.html.
8
that generally elect to retain their other professional services in-house.26 The MDO also permits
establishing a secondary name brand that can be used by the member firms but without the ethical
constraints discussed throughout this treatise.
One-stop shopping is about choice. Ironically, at the same time the Big 5 are explaining the benefits of the
one-stop shopping, the in-house MDP model may actually be undermining the very purpose of expanding
choices to clients. The reason is that the only services that are available are from the professionals in the
MDP itself. If a grocery store only offered its own brand names, it would not be a one-stop shop since its
capacity to offer products is limited. The same limitation applies to the Big 5.
The MDO, where each member individually focuses their practices and services on a few competencies,
can offer the public and businesses even greater choices at a reduced cost. The MDO model is likely to be
very competitive since it would permit a greater amount of tailoring of the services to meet the exact
needs of the client by offering an expanded palette of choices. Growth of the available services would be
unlimited since each professional entity manages itself. New services can be readily added to further
increase choice.
The MDO can go beyond the Big 5 model by creating opportunities for clients to become a de facto part
of the system.27 While the existing MDPs’ one-stop shopping is based upon the professional gatekeeper
at the MDP who selects other professionals, why is this necessary? The MDO retains the gatekeeper
professional but it could empower the corporate client to shop directly for services that are contained in
the MDO. The client becomes almost an associate member. This latter opportunity is likely to have great
appeal to the in-house corporate counsel who wants to select the best professionals from among a range
of professionals who have already been screened by a reputable organization.
While the Big 5 may have ethical and regulatory issues, they are well organized. On the other hand, the
MDO will face organization and structural issues when they are created. To achieve their objectives,
standards and rules must be adopted by the MDO to apply to all the members when working with clients.
Since the MDO professional team will be judged on the same performance standards as an in-house MDP,
these standards are going to require significant amounts of work. New skills will need to be developed as
the professional roles converge with that of managerial roles.
§ 14.04 MDO Models
In the beginning of this chapter, the two hypothetical examples were introduced and have been referred
to in a number of places. Before evaluating the ethical issues, additional detail on the models would be
useful. They are the I-MDO and the R-MDO.
[1]—An Independent MDO (I-MDO)
26 There are a number of firms that have MDPs, including Womble, Carlyle, Sandridge and Rice (Technology), Littler and Mendelson
(Employment), Hale Dorr (Technology), Howey Simons (Employment), Arnold and Porter (Lobbying), to name a few.
27 The best- known example of this is the Dupont model. In 1996, Dupont had employed over 300 law firms. They decided that this fragmentation
was not cost effective and derided to reduce the number to 30 firms. Among the criteria was the technology. As part of the process, in-house
counsel took on the role of selection of attorneys for each part of the litigation or transactions. Competitors were sometimes hired to provide
specific parts of the services. The corporation likewise would select the specific lawyers. Law and Disorder, Redherring (Apr. 1999) at
http://www.redhearring.com/may/issue65/news-law.html.
8
