205 / 462
GAZETTE
JU
LY/AUGUST
1991
From the President. . .
NORTHERN IRELAND LAW
SOCIETY CONFERENCE -
LAKE DISTRICT,
25th APRIL, 1991
Discussion on Multi-Disciplinary
Practices
There was a most interesting
platform and discussion at the
Northern Ireland Law Society Con-
ference, which this year was held
in the Lake District of England, on
Multi-Disciplinary Practices. No
papers were actually issued and
this is necessarily a selected and
personal commentary on some
aspects.
The platform comprised Tom
Burgess of the Northern Ireland
Law Society who is also strongly
involved in the CCBE, John Curtin,
President of the American Bar
Association and Piet Wackie
Eysten, President of the CCBE.
Although last to speak, it was
Piet who attempted a definition of
a multi-disciplinary practice. In jest,
he suggested that the initials meant
"most discussed problem". His
actual definition, however, I think
reads as follows - an associa-
tion of a lawyer or lawyers with
non lawyers on a permanent basis.
Having regard to the differences
throughout the community and the
different work undertaken by
Barristers, Solicitors, Avocats,
Notaires and/or Estate Agents, it
might be necessary to consider the
definition of a lawyer more fully for
each jurisdiction. A temporary
association for a single project or
situation whereby lawyers em-
ployed members of other dis-
ciplines was not really a multi-
disciplinary practice. Neither did a
loose
association
whereby
members of different disciplines
without loss of independence
referred work to each other
constitute a multi-disciplinary
practice proper.
The essential point urged for
consideration by Tom Burgess was
the need of the legal profession to
provide a proper service to clients
and it appeared to be an increasing
requirement of larger corporate
clients or international clients that
they should be able to get all
services under one roof. The matter
had to be considered from the
standpoint of what served the
client and the public interest rather
than from what served the interest
of the profession. It was clear,
however, that any such partnership
did raise problems in relation to the
independence of the lawyer,
possible conflict of interest, clients
privilege or confidentiality and
discipline or ruling authorities.
According to John Curtin, there
was, in fact, no American point of
view on the question of M.D.P.'s.
Under the ABA's current model rule,
partnerships between lawyers and
non lawyers were prohibited and
there was broad agreement that
non lawyers should not have any
stake or interest in a legal firm.
There was an American Com-
mittee sitting and reporting on this
area at the moment. In America,
they referred to the M.D.P. as
'ancillary business' rather than an
M.D.P., and there was a view that
ancillary business could only be
provided to clients of the lawyer
firm.
John Curtin also gave his
definition of a profession as 'a
learned art practised as a common
calling in the public interest'. He
also referred to the existence in the
States of litigation support services
(possibly from accountants or
others) in mega cases.
Piet also affirmed that there was
no CCBE standpoint on the
question of M.D.P.'s, and the CCBE
have no power to lay down any
rules. He stressed the need for an
open mind on the problem, having
regard to the different practices
and requirements in different
jurisdictions. M.D.P.'s were already
in existence in some countries -
although the nature of these might
not be regarded as objectionable in
other countries. For example, in
Germany and the Netherlands,
there were M.D.P.'s between
advocat, notaire, tax advisers but
there was a question mark about
accountants. The Dutch solution to
the problem was that an M.D.
Association
was
allowed
provided: —
1. A satisfactory academic training
was required.
2. Members of other professions
had satisfactory disciplinary
rules.
3. The Association did not inter-
fere with the free independent
exercise of professional duties
and advice. Associations with
accountants were normally
ruled out because of their duty
to cer t i fy and report to
authorities which could fre-
quently be inconsistent with
the lawyers duty to the client.
Piet also referred to the position
of the notary who in many cases
acts for both parties but is in a
sense, above both. He suggested
that it was not impossible to have
rules to deal with conflict. Finally,
he suggested that the strength of
the legal profession was unity,
diversity and continuity in change.
My personal views in regard to
M.D.P.'s were, if anything,
confirmed by the discussion.
Essentially, it seemed to me more
appropriate to proceed by way of a
loose association or arrangement
for referral (which did not in any
way undermine the independence
of any of the disciplines involved)
is the more apprópriate way
forward. This would mean that all
services can be conveniently and
instantly available where required
by a client and provided no conflict
of interest arises - each profession
however, providing the service
independently. Obviously, we
should not totally close our minds
to any further development - or to
the possibility that some further
development might be imposed
upon us by outside authorities -
but it seems to me that before we
acquiesce in the establishment of
M.D.P.'s, we must first see what
solutions if any can be provided to
cover the following points: —
187