Arizona and Utah have both taken huge strides towards changing how the legal profession is regulated. Although the specifics of the reforms differ, the immediate effects in both states might be similar. But a wider cast of characters is paying attention to Arizona, with significant implications in the long run. Want to weigh in? Email me here. Want this dispatch in your inbox every Thursday? Sign up here.

The Dominoes Begin To Fall

When Dylan Jackson and I wrote the March cover story of the American Lawyer about the growing push to change rules prohibiting outside ownership of law firms, our art team delivered a sharp illustration of a set of dominoes falling. Utah knocks down Arizona, which then tumbles into California, with Illinois and D.C. next in line.

Well, in the last two weeks, we've seen this unfold in reality, but the actual picture looks a little different. I'd call Utah, where the state's Supreme Court approved a "regulatory sandbox" that allows nonlawyers to start businesses providing legal services on a trial basis, a half domino. And while Utah's move preceded the Arizona Supreme Court's announcement that it would eliminate Rule 5.4 by several weeks, since both changes have been in the works for some time, I'd portray both pieces as falling simultaneously.