ABA Approves Innovation Resolution, With Revisions to Limit Regulatory Changes
By a near-unanimous vote, the ABA House of Delegates approved the resolution after revising it to address concerns raised by the New York State Bar Association and others.
February 17, 2020 at 07:26 PM
4 minute read
The American Bar Association's House of Delegates passed a resolution to push for new approaches to the practice of law that would improve access to justice, but not before adding a disclaimer to address concerns raised by some state bar associations about outside investment in law firms.
An overwhelming majority of the House of Delegates agreed in a verbal vote Monday to approve Resolution 115, which encourages state regulators and state bar associations to explore regulatory innovations that could improve access to legal services, and to collect data on those programs. But the resolution also notes that it should not be construed as recommending any changes to the ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct, including Rule 5.4, as they relate to nonlawyer ownership of law firms, the unauthorized practice of law, or any other subjects.
The vote in favor was near unanimous. Henry Greenberg, president of the New York State Bar Association, which had a few weeks ago raised concerns about elements of a report accompanying Resolution 115, spoke in support of the resolution at the meeting Monday.
"115 is not just the right thing to do, the moral thing to do for our clients, but for the profession it's the right thing to do. We know pro bono alone is not getting it done," Greenberg told the delegates when urging them to support the resolution. He noted that it does not dictate any changes state bar associations should make.
Two weeks ago, leaders of several state bar associations expressed opposition to 115, saying it would lead to outside investment in law firms or nonlawyers practicing law. New York bar leaders sent a letter to the ABA House of Delegates, the national group's main policymaking body, outlining their concerns.
State bar associations in Ohio, New Jersey, Illinois, Pennsylvania and Delaware also opposed the resolution in its previous form.
In an interview following Monday's vote, Greenberg said discussions over the last 10 days with sponsors of Resolution 115 led to revisions that allayed the New York bar's concerns.
The favorable vote at the ABA's midyear meeting in Austin is a "great day for lawyers [and] their clients," said Greenberg, a shareholder at Greenberg Traurig in Albany.
Lora Livingston, a state district judge in Austin who introduced the resolution at the meeting, urged delegates to support it because it seeks "real creative solutions" to the access-to-justice crisis the U.S. faces. It encourages people to think outside the box, she said, adding that it does not advocate any specific innovation or program.
Livingston is a member of the advisory counsel of the ABA Center for Innovation, which helped prepare the resolution in partnership with four ABA standing committees dealing with ethics and professional responsibility.
When the New York bar sent its opposition letter, Greenberg said, it pointed to sections of the report accompanying the drafted resolution that would violate New York rules prohibiting the unauthorized practice of law and outside investment in law firms. But the revised resolution and report eliminated the bar's concerns, he said.
No one spoke in opposition to the resolution during the House of Delegates meeting.
Some ideas intended to increase access to legal representation are already forming in states. Bar groups and courts in California, Utah and Arizona are pursuing proposals for fee-sharing with nonlawyers and permitting outside investment in law firms. The Chicago Bar Association also formed a task force to consider changes in Illinois.
The revised report does not recommend amendments to existing ABA model rules because more data is needed to determine which, if any, regulatory changes would encourage new models for "competent and cost-effective" legal services delivery.
|Read More
ABA Could Encourage States to Allow Outside Ownership of Law Firms
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllQuinn Emanuel Has Thrived in China. Will Trump Help Boost Its Fortunes?
Law Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1Gibson Dunn Sued By Crypto Client After Lateral Hire Causes Conflict of Interest
- 2Trump's Solicitor General Expected to 'Flip' Prelogar's Positions at Supreme Court
- 3Pharmacy Lawyers See Promise in NY Regulator's Curbs on PBM Industry
- 4Outgoing USPTO Director Kathi Vidal: ‘We All Want the Country to Be in a Better Place’
- 5Supreme Court Will Review Constitutionality Of FCC's Universal Service Fund
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250