Climate Change Deniers In Law

UK is proof nonlawyer ownership threatens legal profession - this headline in Law360 caught my eye over the weekend. Was there new research? I decided to find out.

Here is the last paragraph that sums up nicely both the views of the authors and the intent of the opinion piece:

Leveraging innovation and technology to increase access to legal services is a noble goal. But before we resolve to being put out of business by nonlawyers, we should demand evidence that the sweeping changes to our profession will have a benefit. And we should demand that the ABA and our state bar associations support us in the fight. Our leadership must act to adequately protect our interests, our profession and our livelihood.

Twenty-two endnotes suggested an academic rigour not too common in Law360 pieces. However, a thorough review of their sources reveals that the authors quoted one (1!!) source for all of their allegations that the “UK is Proof Nonlawyer Ownership Threatens Legal Profession”, namely a 2016 paper in The Georgetown Journal of Legal Ethics by Nick Robinson.

While using a five-year old paper as the only “proof” is an interesting approach to say the least, Mr. Robinson’s paper is actually from 2014 (see SSRN here: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2487878) and is based on 2012/2013 data. At that point licenses for Alternative Business Structures (ABS), which is the English term for non-lawyer ownership, had been issued for all of two (2!!) years.

Wouldn’t some newer research have been worth quoting? Apparently not. But I get it. The point is not to show any “proof”, but for a certain ilk of lawyers to yell as loud as they can while defending their money-making privileges.

If this is as good as the opposition is going to get, they should be heard and then their contribution should be weighed on its substance which is IMHO close to zero.

Much courage and conviction to you, ABA and other state bar associations, in basing your decisions on real evidence rather than these views expressed by deniers.

PS: Mr. Robinson’s paper was thorough and balanced in its assessment and suggestions. Today’s regulatory practice in England & Wales (rather than the UK) has developed in ways that resemble some of his suggestions.