 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
Utah State Bar
Multidisciplinary (MDP) Task Force
Minutes
January 27, 2000
One Utah Center
In attendance: Mike Blackburn - Co-chair, Ray Westergard - Co-chair, Val Antczak, Brent Armstrong, Charles R. Brown, Cindy Crass, George Harris, Mark Lehman, Jane Marquardt, Craig Omer, Mark Stevens & Toby Brown.
I Mike Blackburn welcomed everyone and asked for a review of the minutes from the January 6, 2000 meeting. A motion to accept these minutes was made, seconded and approved.
II Mike suggested that meetings be set for the next few months. The following dates we chosen: March 9, April 6 and May 4, 2000.
III Presentations and Meetings:
Mike reported on a presentation made to the Estate Planning Council. The Task Force efforts were generally reported on and input was requested from attendees.
Mike also requested volunteers from the Task Force to present at the Bar's Mid-Year Convention in St. George in March. Mike, Charles Brown, Dave Nuffer and Toby Brown will be participating.
Toby mentioned that he would be participating in an MDP dialogue at the ABA meetings in Dallas in early February on Charles' behalf.
Charles will be updating the Bar Commission on the Task Force efforts at the January 28th Commission meeting.
IV Mike picked up the discussion from the last meeting on the ethics of certain current practices. Under the general category of "Lawyers inside companies selling non-lawyer services," the example of being cross-licensed was discussed. Specifically mentioned was a lawyer who is also licensed to sell insurance. Problems arise when the lawyer gives legal advice while selling insurance. Ethics would suggest the need to disclose the difference between advice and insurance products to clients; however, Cindy Crass noted that no 'bright line' is available. Jane Marquardt mentioned that this circumstance is occurring more frequently. In contrast, Mark Lehman pointed out that this situation might be preferable to non-lawyer insurance agents giving legal advice. It was generally decided that clients need to be informed in these situations and that lawyers have some burden to disclose these arrangements, especially when fees and commissions are involved.
Brent Armstrong raised the issue of "what is an informed consumer?" Discussion followed. Charles made the point that the courts will likely define theses issues through liability cases. Mark raised the point of whether ethical rules allow these arrangements now. Toby pointed out that the "Contract Model" appears to be ethical, since it legally separates the selling of products from the selling of legal advice. Even though one person is providing both services, payments are made to different entities. Ray Westergard confirmed that accounting firms already do this for traditional accounting services and consulting services. Val Antzcak suggested that the ethics rules need to be changed to reflect these realities. Charles further suggested that we need to examine the underlying purpose of each rule and assess the relevance of each.
Ray proposed that by removing out-dated ethical restrictions it would level the playing field for lawyers in law firms and lawyers inside non-law firm companies. Charles mentioned that this might be an opportunity to benefit lawyers and benefit the public by expanding access to legal services.
Toby summarized the discussion thus far as: 1) MDP can happen right now, especially through a 'Contract Model.' 2) This Contract Model in essence is subverting the ethics rules. 3) Given the differences between the rules and practice realities, we should be rewriting the ethics rules.
Cindy cautioned that by altering the rules in this manner we might be eroding the attorney/client privilege. Perhaps our issues may be better handled through disclosure rules. Charles suggested that we might ultimately end up with a barrister/solicitor model. Jane mentioned that model would suggest specialization for lawyers. Brent mentioned the difficulty for a unified bar in balancing the public's needs with that of its members. Cindy restated that issue as being the difference between being a profession and a business. Craig Omer noted that accountants have a monopoly over auditing and the prices for audits continue to decline; in essence they have become a commodity. So the monopoly position in a profession may have limited value. Mark pointed out that consumers have some responsibility to be knowledgeable.
Toby summarized the preceding discussion as: Any recommendations from this Task Force will need to balance the needs of the profession with the needs of the public.
V Mike proposed that at our next meeting we take a closer look at the 'Contract Model' in terms of its ethics for law firms and associated entities. Toby agreed to confer with Billy Walker on this subject prior to the next meeting for his feedback on the potential ethical issues involved.
The next meeting is set for:
March 9, 2000 at 7:30 a.m. at the Law & Justice Center.
Last Update: 09/04/02
