The Preclusion of Nonlawyer Ownership of Law Firms: Protecting the Interest of Clients or Protecting the Interest of Lawyers?
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
For the third time in as many decades, lawyers in the United States have sullied the notion of nonlawyer ownership of law firms. The most recent examination of alternative law practice structures was undertaken by Ethics 20/20, a Commission created by the American Bar Association [ABA] to conduct a plenary assessment of the ABA Rules of Professional Conduct and related ABA policies. A Working Group was formed which considered whether clients could be better served if law practice entities were restructured. To this end, issues were formulated and different law practice configurations were proposed, about which the public and members of the legal profession were invited to comment. Receiving mixed reviews, Ethics 20/20 decided not to put the matter of nonlawyer ownership of law practices before the ABA House of Delegates in 2012 and 2013, when revisions to the ABA Rules were considered.Precluding nonlawyer ownership of law firms has been the majority rule in the United States for almost a century. With the exception of the District of Columbia, the states do not allow nonlawyers to own interests in law firms. However, this is not the case in the rest of the world. A number of countries allow nonlawyer ownership of legal practice entities, as well as other practice formulations where legal services can be a component part of another business. Many feel formulations such as these better serve the public and make legal practitioners more competitive, especially in the international marketplace. All this notwithstanding, United States critics of nonlawyer ownership claim that such formulations are unnecessary, will threaten the core values of the profession, and will undermine the profession by leading to loss of self-regulation. Looking at the experience of the District of Columbia, as well as countries such as Australia, Canada and England & Wales, this doesn’t seem to be the case.An examination of the opposition to nonlawyer ownership of legal practices reveals that the primary focus in the United States has been directed toward the well being of the legal profession, rather than toward the well being of the community at large. Those who seek to keep the status quo don’t even want to have the discussion. This reluctance comes from lawyers wanting to protect themselves rather than concern for clients and the public.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,032 | 0,088 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,008 | 0,051 |
| Communication savante | 0,020 | 0,029 |
| Science ouverte | 0,004 | 0,011 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,020 | 0,023 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,005 | 0,001 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».