Over the past couple of weeks, there were a couple of developments that could—and I emphasize could—impact the business of law.
First, California has flirted off and on for a while now with changing the ownership rules for law firms and allowing nonlawyer ownership. Unlike regulators in Utah and Arizona, though, the good folks in California have never been able to bit the bullet and allow ownership by anyone but full-fledged lawyers. Recently, another California committee once again closed the door. The first was a report out of California.
An ownership proposal had been under review for several months by something called the Paraprofessional Program Working Group. According to reports, the Committee bowed to substantial “public” criticism. It thus decided not to recommend that nonlawyers be allowed to own a stake in law firms. The Committee also rejected a proposal for a new class of licensed nonlawyer professionals. These professionals could have provided limited legal services in California.
According to the Committee, there was overwhelming public opposition to the proposals. I’m reasonably sure, though, that those overwhelming comments came from lawyers and maybe judges. Those who the judicial system is supposed to serve—those who need more efficient, better, and less costly legal services—may not have been familiar with the proposal and its impact. Or, for that matter even how to comment.
It had long been thought that if a state like Californian or Flordia supported nonlawyer ownership of firms,
