There is no question that the legal practice is diversifying and with the socio-demographics of our society changing, it is time for the legal profession to catch up with the current legal landscape. I think it is even more crucial for smaller firms or sole practitioners to adapt to this change if they want to remain competitive. One way firms can do this is to develop different business structures. The one that could work in Canada is to allow multi-disciplinary practices (MDP) to exist alongside traditional law firms. Multi-disciplinary practices are “business arrangements in which different professions practise together to provide a broad range of advice to consumers”. For example, a lawyer and a real estate agent can enter into a partnership to work together under the same name and provide services together.
In 2010, the Law Society of British Columbia took initial steps to introduce multi-disciplinary practices into the legal profession. The regulations were outlined in the Law Society Rules from Rules 2-38 to 2-49, which can be found here <https://www.lawsociety.bc.ca/page.cfm?cid=4092&t=Law-Society-Rules-2015-Part-2-%E2%80%93-Membership-and-Authority-to-Practise-Law#38>.
In my opinion, the rules set above are a good start to allow the shift to multi-disciplinary practices but the rules do place great restrictions on lawyers and non-lawyers who wish to open such a practice. The worries that the Law Society might have are understandable but I think steps can be put into place to tackle these issues. The biggest concern they would have is the confidentiality, conflicts of interest and solicitor-client privilege issues. Given that many different professionals can be working together, all with different ethical standards required by their respective governing bodies, the risk of a breach of either confidentiality or conflict of interest is increased. Lawyers arguably have the highest standard when it comes to solicitor-client privilege or conflicts of interest, so it could be possible to create a multi-disciplinary practice where a lawyer has to be the controlling partner and thus they can monitor and watch over the ethical concerns.
Another worry that the Law Society might have is that non-lawyers might be in a position to offer legal advice. In Ontario, the LSUC has dealt with this issue by stating that the lawyer members of a multi-disciplinary practice are responsible for ensuring that non-lawyers comply with the rules and regulations of LSUC. However an argument against this solution is that by forcing multi-disciplinary practices to have lawyers in charge, the Law Society is limiting MDP to a single service and this goes against what a MDP really stands for.
There are valid concerns with the creation of multi-disciplinary practices. However, with benefits like one-stop shopping for clients and the benefits to smaller firms like creating expertise in a specific area, I believe the benefits outweigh the costs. Law societies across the country can look at other jurisdictions around the world, like Australia, where multi-disciplinary practices have been implemented and are successful.
3 Comments
I agree that the benefits out way the costs, Onkar. Overhead can be greatly reduced in an MDP because support staff and building costs can be shared. MDP’s should also drive revenues up because services can be bundled and referrals can be made within the MDP. The risks to clients will always be present but I believe that sound regulation can mitigate these concerns.
Great post Onkar!
I agree that introducing MDP has many benefits in respect to costs as Rob suggested. Although I have to wonder how it will work in practice and if the differences in culture between professions might cause some tension. For example, a merger of accountants and lawyers. Some suspect that accountants, who are said take a more passive approach, and lawyers, who are said to be more technical and self-centred, will clash in conflicting operations and management as reflected in their personality traits. I don’t necessarily agree that this can be said about each individual in the field however, there does seem to be a trend. If this is something the firms are aware of, it will be interesting to see if MDPs will take an innovative approach to overcome this tension and find a structure that works for all.
Good post Onkar! I agree that practice model innovation through multi-disciplinary collaboration is definitely a great way to transform service delivery to clients – in the context of both legal and other services (e.g. accounting, counselling etc.). I think MDPs will lend themselves well to many practice areas where other professionals are often already involved in some context (e.g. family law, personal injury, real estate etc.). I agree with Rob’s comment that sound regulation of such ventures will mitigate potential risks to clients. Further, many other professions are well regulated with requirements such as liability insurance, mandatory licensing and registration through ‘Colleges’ or associations etc., so collaborative compatibility would have some common foundational grounds. I think that evaluating pre-existing regulatory frameworks (domestic and international) for MDPs against our provincial regulatory regimes for various professions would perhaps be a great step toward better understanding any regulatory gaps, and creating strong, functional schemes for BC.