The controversy over multidisciplinary practice continues to swirl around the District of Columbia. For years, the District, with its unique Rule 5.4(b), which permits lawyers to partner with nonlawyers in the delivery of legal services and to incorporate a non-law-firm trade name into the name of a law firm, has appeared to some to be a jurisdiction on the cutting edge of the future. To others, it has seemed to be teetering on the brink of professional disaster.

When the ABA Commission on Multidisciplinary Practice released its report in June 1999, the battle lines formed immediately. In favor of the panel’s sweeping recommendations were those who felt that economic convergence, consolidation, and globalization made multidisciplinary practices not only desirable but inevitable. Firmly opposed to this view, many traditional practitioners cautioned that MDP threatened the legal profession’s core values and would lead to the end of the practice of law as we know it. Developments since then have done little to resolve the problem.

This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.

To view this content, please continue to their sites.

Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Why am I seeing this?

LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.

For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]