California Plan for Lawyer Fee-Sharing Picks Up Speed
A vote by the state bar's board of trustees marks another baby step toward reshaping law firm ownership rules and transforming legal entrepreneurship.
July 12, 2019 at 11:51 AM
3 minute read
The board of trustees of the State Bar of California voted unanimously Thursday to let the public weigh in on recommendations that would allow attorneys to share fees with nonlawyers and ultimately open door to outside ownership of law firms.
The 23-member board was responding to the work of the Task Force on Access Through Innovation of Legal Services. The group was created in 2018 to look for ways to encourage technological solutions to drive down the cost of legal work, thereby making it easier for the state's residents to secure assistance.
The state bar task force, which was split between lawyers and nonlawyers, came back with a series of recommendations that included changing bar rules to allow “technology-driven delivery systems” and permitting some degree of fee-sharing.
Joanna Mendoza, a solo practitioner who is on the board of trustees and served on the task force, said the proposals were motivated by the fact that 80% of the people in the state who need legal services are not going to lawyers.
“I think lawyers, generally speaking, have a fear of a change like this,” Mendoza said in advance of the vote. “But there's no justification not to try it.”
The task force's recommendations on fee-sharing have the widest possibility to upend the industry. Rather than agree on one definitive approach, the group outlined two prospective strategies. The more restrained option would allow attorneys to share revenues with nonlawyers only if their firm remains solely focused on providing legal services.
The bolder one would do away with the existing prohibition on fee-sharing and allow nonlawyer investment and revenue-sharing under any circumstances, as long as a firm's clients consent.
“It invites others who are not lawyers to the table to bring new knowledge, ideas, funding and ultimately change,” the task force said of the plan in its recommendations.
Some law firm observers have expressed concern that the change could open the doors for the Big Four accounting firms to enter the market for legal services in the state. But the task force, in its recommendations, said the existing justice gap was severe enough to justify the daring move.
An additional recommendation would allow lawyers to engage in ancillary law-related activities that are not regulated by the state bar. A majority of jurisdictions currently allow such work, but California does not.
After the public comment period ends, the task force will finalize its recommendations, and the board of trustees will take a final vote in January. The Supreme Court of California must then approve any changes to the regulations.
|Read More
New California Task Force Looks to Tech, Regulations to Bring Access to Justice
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 AllLost in the Legal Maze: How State Regulations Are Hindering Hemp Operators' Success
7 minute readPorsche's Venture Capital Arm Adds General Counsel From Clifford Chance
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