Page 11 - Multidisciplinary Organizatons - Law and Accounting
P. 11
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.28 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)
There are already a number of virtual MDO’s that are interested in providing consumer’s access to
professionals.29 “The user simply enters some basic information about the issue, which is then matched
with a lawyer, architect, accountant or other professional. In addition, there are a number of services that
provide real time answers to questions from experts, including lawyers.30 At present, on-line services do
not attempt to match professionals to professionals, though the professionals themselves can do this
through the services. The services charge the lawyers a monthly fee. The payment of a fee for possible
referrals raises a number of issues, though if done correctly, they can be resolved.31"
28 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.
29 Carte, High Tech Matchmaking, 86 ABA Journal 47 (June 2000).
30 Keem.com (http://www.keem.com) permits users to locate people who hold themselves out as experts in an area.
31 According to Arthur Miller, a Harvard Law professor who has an interest in amerilaw.com another similar referral group, the rules on non-
lawyer investment do not apply because the site itself does not provide legal services.
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.28 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)
There are already a number of virtual MDO’s that are interested in providing consumer’s access to
professionals.29 “The user simply enters some basic information about the issue, which is then matched
with a lawyer, architect, accountant or other professional. In addition, there are a number of services that
provide real time answers to questions from experts, including lawyers.30 At present, on-line services do
not attempt to match professionals to professionals, though the professionals themselves can do this
through the services. The services charge the lawyers a monthly fee. The payment of a fee for possible
referrals raises a number of issues, though if done correctly, they can be resolved.31"
28 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.
29 Carte, High Tech Matchmaking, 86 ABA Journal 47 (June 2000).
30 Keem.com (http://www.keem.com) permits users to locate people who hold themselves out as experts in an area.
31 According to Arthur Miller, a Harvard Law professor who has an interest in amerilaw.com another similar referral group, the rules on non-
lawyer investment do not apply because the site itself does not provide legal services.
