ABA Model Rules Summary
A
D. The ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct – 1983
In 1977, the ABA established a Commission on the Evaluation of Professional Standards, the “Kutak commission”, named after its chair, Robert Kutak. The Kutak Commission circulated four drafts of its proposed Model Rules of Professional Conduct before the ABA formally adopted the current version of the Model Rules in 1983. The Kutak Commission recommended that the ABA change the Model Rules to allow fee sharing with non-lawyers. The commission recommended that the ABA adopt Proposed Rule 5.4, providing that:
A lawyer may be employed by an organization in which a financial interest is held or managerial authority is exercised by a non-lawyer . . . such as a business corporation, insurance …show more content…
The Kutak Commission’s arguments failed to convince the ABA House of Delegates.
Other opposition to the proposal included threat that non-lawyer ownership of law firms would interfere with the professional independence of lawyers , that non-lawyer ownership would result in economic pressures that would undermine the “professionalism” of law , and that the proposed rule could dramatically alter, in unforeseeable ways, the structure of the legal profession.
Nevertheless, the opposition’s most polarizing argument was the “Fear of Sears” reflected the concern that large corporations, such as Sears, would overwhelm “the legal marketplace, putting many small firms and sole practitioners out of business.” The Kutak Commission’s Proposed Rule 5.4 did not survive this “Fear of Sears” and was rejected by the …show more content…
The first step in solving any problem is recognizing that there is one. ABA Commission on the Future of Legal Services unequivocally recognized that the future of legal services depends on how the profession handles the evolving models of business, delivery of legal-services, technology and innovation. Also it recommended further study and consideration and makes it clear that significant change is not just an option, but a necessity, and that change will require innovative delivery models.
D. The ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct – 1983
In 1977, the ABA established a Commission on the Evaluation of Professional Standards, the “Kutak commission”, named after its chair, Robert Kutak. The Kutak Commission circulated four drafts of its proposed Model Rules of Professional Conduct before the ABA formally adopted the current version of the Model Rules in 1983. The Kutak Commission recommended that the ABA change the Model Rules to allow fee sharing with non-lawyers. The commission recommended that the ABA adopt Proposed Rule 5.4, providing that:
A lawyer may be employed by an organization in which a financial interest is held or managerial authority is exercised by a non-lawyer . . . such as a business corporation, insurance …show more content…
The Kutak Commission’s arguments failed to convince the ABA House of Delegates.
Other opposition to the proposal included threat that non-lawyer ownership of law firms would interfere with the professional independence of lawyers , that non-lawyer ownership would result in economic pressures that would undermine the “professionalism” of law , and that the proposed rule could dramatically alter, in unforeseeable ways, the structure of the legal profession.
Nevertheless, the opposition’s most polarizing argument was the “Fear of Sears” reflected the concern that large corporations, such as Sears, would overwhelm “the legal marketplace, putting many small firms and sole practitioners out of business.” The Kutak Commission’s Proposed Rule 5.4 did not survive this “Fear of Sears” and was rejected by the …show more content…
The first step in solving any problem is recognizing that there is one. ABA Commission on the Future of Legal Services unequivocally recognized that the future of legal services depends on how the profession handles the evolving models of business, delivery of legal-services, technology and innovation. Also it recommended further study and consideration and makes it clear that significant change is not just an option, but a necessity, and that change will require innovative delivery models.