Page 16 - MDPs - Chapter 14 - Multidisciplinayr Practice and Partnershps
P. 16
Lastly to be global the organization must be local everywhere. Freidheim defines “local” as understanding
local customer markets, having a national image, local workforce and local operations. While the largest
firms may have 50 or more branches, many are not local in that they have few local professionals.34 Some
may argue that localization is not required when advice is being provided for global companies. However,
because lawyers deal with governments, understanding local conditions may be difficult unless the firms
are clearly lock.
Even though the Big 5 may be well on the road to achieving each of these standards by themselves,
according to Freidheim a single entity achieving the highest level of each of these standards is not possible.
The only way to achieve the highest level is through cooperation with similar entities that share a common
vision that he describes as the relationship enterprise. The R-MDO may in fact be the ultimate MDP
because it is able to grow globally to be truly local in every jurisdiction. Beginning with the best firms and
companies, it can rapidly set world standards for services.
Many ethical issues discussed in this treatise can be resolved without changing the existing rules. For
example, the R-MDO could grow to represent all possible clients without conflicts of interest since those
conflicts are confined to the participating entities.35 On the other hand, there are some issues that are
similar to those found in in-house controlled MDPs. For example, location is largely irrelevant;
professionals will be even more tempted to advise in jurisdictions where they are not licensed.
§ 14.05 Rules and Enforcement — Interests of the Parties
In the introductory part of this chapter, two hypothetical WSG, were described. How do they measure
ethically?
The traditional rules that govern lawyers, accountants and other professionals are based upon concepts
grounded in relationships between clients and professionals. They are not generally based upon the
relationship between the client and a law36 relationship with a directory. Using communications tools like
the Internet, without separate organizations like WSG and PSI, does not create issues that have not been
dealt with in other chapters.37
The standard issues raised in Chapter One and throughout this treatise can easily be dealt with because
of the independent nature of the participating professionals, firms and companies in the MDO. MDOs,
absent fee splitting, are consistent with the both the ABA and AICPA rules that regulate the individual
professional since there are p changes in the professional relationships with clients. Confidentiality is
maintained when there is an attorney/accountant/client relationship established because actual cases are
handled separate and apart from the MDO. The MDO is consistent with the conflicts of interest rules since
the entities retain their independence from each other. Fee sharing, prohibited by the ABA rules, is not
34 Of the 50 largest law firms worldwide with sizes from 603 to 2732, the percentage of attorneys outside the country ranges from 9% to 60%.
There are only three firms with over 50% and 12 with between 20% and 50% with most in the 20% to 30% range. Law firms are far from global or
local in other countries.
35 Provided that the members are independent organizations with no obligation to refer business to each other, there is no confidential
information shared among all of the members. Though transactions are individual in nature, there is no reason why members could not represent
all clients and even clients with interests in the same matter.
36 Under ABA Model Rule 1.7, the confidences of each attorney in a law firm are imputed to the other attorneys. This does not mean that the
firm is regulated; it is simply the conduit for the imputation of conflicts.
37 For a general discussion of the traditional rules as applied to the Internet, see Fishkin and Thomason, The Wild West Frontier (No Ethics
Immunity for Use of the Internet), 26 San Fran. Att. 14 (4) (April/May 2000).
11
local customer markets, having a national image, local workforce and local operations. While the largest
firms may have 50 or more branches, many are not local in that they have few local professionals.34 Some
may argue that localization is not required when advice is being provided for global companies. However,
because lawyers deal with governments, understanding local conditions may be difficult unless the firms
are clearly lock.
Even though the Big 5 may be well on the road to achieving each of these standards by themselves,
according to Freidheim a single entity achieving the highest level of each of these standards is not possible.
The only way to achieve the highest level is through cooperation with similar entities that share a common
vision that he describes as the relationship enterprise. The R-MDO may in fact be the ultimate MDP
because it is able to grow globally to be truly local in every jurisdiction. Beginning with the best firms and
companies, it can rapidly set world standards for services.
Many ethical issues discussed in this treatise can be resolved without changing the existing rules. For
example, the R-MDO could grow to represent all possible clients without conflicts of interest since those
conflicts are confined to the participating entities.35 On the other hand, there are some issues that are
similar to those found in in-house controlled MDPs. For example, location is largely irrelevant;
professionals will be even more tempted to advise in jurisdictions where they are not licensed.
§ 14.05 Rules and Enforcement — Interests of the Parties
In the introductory part of this chapter, two hypothetical WSG, were described. How do they measure
ethically?
The traditional rules that govern lawyers, accountants and other professionals are based upon concepts
grounded in relationships between clients and professionals. They are not generally based upon the
relationship between the client and a law36 relationship with a directory. Using communications tools like
the Internet, without separate organizations like WSG and PSI, does not create issues that have not been
dealt with in other chapters.37
The standard issues raised in Chapter One and throughout this treatise can easily be dealt with because
of the independent nature of the participating professionals, firms and companies in the MDO. MDOs,
absent fee splitting, are consistent with the both the ABA and AICPA rules that regulate the individual
professional since there are p changes in the professional relationships with clients. Confidentiality is
maintained when there is an attorney/accountant/client relationship established because actual cases are
handled separate and apart from the MDO. The MDO is consistent with the conflicts of interest rules since
the entities retain their independence from each other. Fee sharing, prohibited by the ABA rules, is not
34 Of the 50 largest law firms worldwide with sizes from 603 to 2732, the percentage of attorneys outside the country ranges from 9% to 60%.
There are only three firms with over 50% and 12 with between 20% and 50% with most in the 20% to 30% range. Law firms are far from global or
local in other countries.
35 Provided that the members are independent organizations with no obligation to refer business to each other, there is no confidential
information shared among all of the members. Though transactions are individual in nature, there is no reason why members could not represent
all clients and even clients with interests in the same matter.
36 Under ABA Model Rule 1.7, the confidences of each attorney in a law firm are imputed to the other attorneys. This does not mean that the
firm is regulated; it is simply the conduit for the imputation of conflicts.
37 For a general discussion of the traditional rules as applied to the Internet, see Fishkin and Thomason, The Wild West Frontier (No Ethics
Immunity for Use of the Internet), 26 San Fran. Att. 14 (4) (April/May 2000).
11
