"ARE YOU DOWN WITH MDP......"

No, it's not a new version of the song "OPP" by the rap group Naughty by Nature. It is, however, a new position by the American Bar Association suggesting that lawyers get down with MDP. If you haven't heard, MDP is the acronym for Multi-disciplinary Practice and is one of the most hotly debated issues that may impact the practice of law in the next decade. MDP is defined as the joint representation of clients by lawyers and non-lawyers to provide comprehensive services to meet a client's needs. More specifically, it has been defined by the ABA Commission studying the concept as:
A partnership, professional corporation, or other association or entity that includes lawyers and has as one, but not all, of its purposes the delivery of legal services to a client(s) other than the MDP itself or that holds itself out as providing nonlegal, as well as legal, services. It includes an arrangement by which a law firm joins with one or more other professional firms to provide services, including legal services, and there is a direct or indirect sharing of profits as part of the arrangement.

The concept is akin to health care provider groups which provide an array of specialists and services (cardiologist, physical therapists, internal medicine, diagnostic services) to patients in what has become commonly known as "one-stop shopping."
MDP are hotly debated because their existence would require two substantial changes in the modern legal paradigm. First, there is the criminal rule of law in most states that prevents non-lawyers from the unauthorized practice of law. These laws have, in effect, given lawyers and their bar associations a monopoly. Second, the ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct, which many states, including West Virginia, follow in great substance, prohibit a lawyer from sharing fees with a non-lawyer. The rule also prohibits the formation of a partnership with a non-lawyer if a part of the activity of that partnership will constitute the practice of law.
Proponents of MDP contend that the nature of modern business and the global economy have made the ethical restrictions of a lawyer and non-lawyer partnership and legal fee sharing obsolete. They believe that these constraints stand in the way of the delivery of efficient and cost effective professional services. Opponents argue that MDP is an assault on the fundamental and essential elements of the legal profession - individual professional judgment, loyalty and client confidentiality. They insist that the ethical standards, as well as common business practices of lawyers and other professionals, are like oil and vinegar and just don't mix. Moreover, some are concerned that MDP will continue to erode the professional stature of lawyers and further impact an already negative image.
Changes to the rules as proposed by the ABA Commission on MDP and as adopted by a handful of states (most recently New York, the largest bar association) will affect not only larger firms but small firms and sole practitioners. Such changes would undoubtedly cause a marketing as well as a philosophical challenge to lawyers and firms as they consider or attempt to horizontally integrate services pairing up with accountants, sports agents, financial planners, retirement specialists, insurance agents and on and on to make themselves or their firms attractive and competitive.
It is unclear when the ABA Commission's recommendation to allow MDPs and make corresponding changes to the Model Rules of Ethical Conduct will be formally considered by the ABA House of Delegates. The Commission's report was not acted on at last year's annual meeting awaiting more input from individual states. It is yet unclear if it will be taken up by the House at the annual meeting in New York in July. In 1999, a committee was formed by the West Virginia Board of Governors to consider MDPs and issue a report. The West Virginia Board of Governors was presented that report in May. It concluded that the Board of Governors should oppose MDP as proposed by the ABA. The Board of Governors will continue to study this debated issue.
I am not sure where I come down on the issue and would welcome your input. However, I have been considering my options. If I expanded my practice to automobile injury and family law, maybe I could have a chiropractor and neurologist in one office, a paint and body shop next door and a flower shop in the back for estranged couples. Do we really need Super Wal-Mart law practices? Email your thoughts to dty@bcyon.com.