Page 10 - Multidisciplinary Organizatons - Law and Accounting
P. 10
in the virtual network as a whole rather than the limited resources at the individual member firms. Those
resources can efficiently be deployed where and when they are needed.
ยง 14.03 MDOs v. Big 5 - Client Relationships and Choices
The heart of the MDP debate is creating relationships with clients so that they are attracted to the one-
stop shop. Clients want the opportunity to choose. The Big 5 and the MDO members have similar but
different perspectives on these objectives.
The Big 5 are seeking to maintain and consolidate their global lead in the professional services market by
creating relationships with existing and potential clients.24 Increasingly technology is being used. While
bar and other professional associations have made good use of technology to channel communications to
and from the organization, few associations use it to foster relationships among members themselves.
Peer-to-peer networking is still an untapped opportunity for almost all professionals outside of the Big 5.
At present most of the networking is done at meetings rather than on-line.
In the same way the Big 5 create teams internally and develop relationships,25 independent professionals
and organizations could create competitive, if not better, alternatives for multidisciplinary services. A
group of independent firms can likewise increase the level of internal contact among professionals in
different fields. For example, environmental lawyers would have the opportunity to network with
environmental consultants, engineers and others who have common interests. When information is
collected, it can also be shared with clients of all of the members.26 In short, building these relationships
makes it possible for the MDO to take multidisciplinary practice to its logical conclusion. It permits
professional service providers the opportunity to focus on one or several core competencies but at the
same time have access to all services.
This model contrasts significantly with the existing Big 5 strategy to bring all services in-house. Even while
some of the Big 5 are reorganizing to create separate entities for accounting/auditing and their consulting
practices, their model remains the management of large numbers of professionals operating under a
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.27 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.
24 The Big 5 have unlimited access to technical resources as a result of their consulting practices and also their venture capital investments. When
Dupont wanted a system designed to manage outside counsel, they turned to Arthur Andersen. AA now can use a similar system to manage its
relationships with clients. like Law and Disorder, Redherring (Apr. 1999) at http://www.redhearring.com/may/issue65/news- law.html.
25 Arthur Andersen permits its clients to access its database of papers and monographs. See http:/fwww.globalbestpractices.com/.
26 For example, law firms and other service providers are purchasing product that facilitate interaction between professionals and clients through
the sharing of real time information. One product can be found at http://www.niku.corn/legal/index.html.
27 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.
resources can efficiently be deployed where and when they are needed.
ยง 14.03 MDOs v. Big 5 - Client Relationships and Choices
The heart of the MDP debate is creating relationships with clients so that they are attracted to the one-
stop shop. Clients want the opportunity to choose. The Big 5 and the MDO members have similar but
different perspectives on these objectives.
The Big 5 are seeking to maintain and consolidate their global lead in the professional services market by
creating relationships with existing and potential clients.24 Increasingly technology is being used. While
bar and other professional associations have made good use of technology to channel communications to
and from the organization, few associations use it to foster relationships among members themselves.
Peer-to-peer networking is still an untapped opportunity for almost all professionals outside of the Big 5.
At present most of the networking is done at meetings rather than on-line.
In the same way the Big 5 create teams internally and develop relationships,25 independent professionals
and organizations could create competitive, if not better, alternatives for multidisciplinary services. A
group of independent firms can likewise increase the level of internal contact among professionals in
different fields. For example, environmental lawyers would have the opportunity to network with
environmental consultants, engineers and others who have common interests. When information is
collected, it can also be shared with clients of all of the members.26 In short, building these relationships
makes it possible for the MDO to take multidisciplinary practice to its logical conclusion. It permits
professional service providers the opportunity to focus on one or several core competencies but at the
same time have access to all services.
This model contrasts significantly with the existing Big 5 strategy to bring all services in-house. Even while
some of the Big 5 are reorganizing to create separate entities for accounting/auditing and their consulting
practices, their model remains the management of large numbers of professionals operating under a
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.27 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.
24 The Big 5 have unlimited access to technical resources as a result of their consulting practices and also their venture capital investments. When
Dupont wanted a system designed to manage outside counsel, they turned to Arthur Andersen. AA now can use a similar system to manage its
relationships with clients. like Law and Disorder, Redherring (Apr. 1999) at http://www.redhearring.com/may/issue65/news- law.html.
25 Arthur Andersen permits its clients to access its database of papers and monographs. See http:/fwww.globalbestpractices.com/.
26 For example, law firms and other service providers are purchasing product that facilitate interaction between professionals and clients through
the sharing of real time information. One product can be found at http://www.niku.corn/legal/index.html.
27 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.
