Page 59 - Lawyers and Accountants - The Future of the Professions
P. 59
Lawyers and Accountants 2019 -
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.148 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.149 “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.150 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.151"
The I-MDO is essentially the same as a directory with the added feature that the members must have a certain
reputation for quality. The members must also trust that the criteria for selection have been objective.
Without these common standards, developing relationships among members will not occur.
Several ethical issues are discussed in the next section.
148 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.
149 Carte, High Tech Matchmaking, 86 ABA Journal 47 (June 2000).
150 Keem.com (http://www.keem.com) permits users to locate people who hold themselves out as experts in an area.
151 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.
56
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.148 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.149 “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.150 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.151"
The I-MDO is essentially the same as a directory with the added feature that the members must have a certain
reputation for quality. The members must also trust that the criteria for selection have been objective.
Without these common standards, developing relationships among members will not occur.
Several ethical issues are discussed in the next section.
148 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.
149 Carte, High Tech Matchmaking, 86 ABA Journal 47 (June 2000).
150 Keem.com (http://www.keem.com) permits users to locate people who hold themselves out as experts in an area.
151 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.
56
