3 ms·

“Also, why would you want to allow non-lawyer ownership of law firms?” For the same reason or not-reason you can have any other company owned by people who are

“Also, why would you want to allow non-lawyer ownership of law firms?” For the same reason or not-reason you can have any other company owned by people who are not experts in the company’s subject. This is probably good for lawyers but otherwise this restriction makes no sense.

rayiner 7y ago
Hey remember how intel suffered for years under CEOs who were chip engineers? And then started doing really great when they moved away from that model and started hiring MBA CEOs?
- Ididntdothis 7y ago
  I am not saying it’s a good idea but such restrictions shouldn’t be there in a “free market/capitalist” country like the US.
- dman 7y ago
  If law firms run by lawyers run better, then why do they need a rule to enforce this? Shouldn't the market take care of this? ie Law Firms with Lawyer owners will simply out compete clueless Law Firms with owners who are not lawyers.
  - likpok 7y ago
    "Better" is a value judgement, and the specific value you've chosen is "makes more money". One concern, I think, is that a non-lawyer may push employees towards legally-unethical behavior. Since the non-lawyer can fire the lawyers, that gives them a big stick they can use to influence the employees.
    - siegel 7y ago
      Lawyers are subject to ethical requirements that are not imposed on non-lawyers. And those ethical requirements are just that - requirements. If a lawyer breaks them, they jeopardize their entire careers. There's no equivalent for a professional CEO. Clients insist that their attorneys act in a fiduciary capacity. This is very different from the chip engineer scenario. It is the most important reason why non-lawyers are not allowed to own law firms. Because non-lawyers are not bound by rules that require them to put profit motives second in many circumstances.
  - rayiner 7y ago
    Because you're not optimizing for the success of the law firms or their clients, but for the structure and integrity of the court system. That integrity depends heavily on the fact that lawyers are trusted repeat players who have a lot of exposure and are personally on the hook for any problem. (Moreover, because a law license is not a right, the due process requirements and burden of proof for disciplining lawyers is far lower than for imposing criminal penalties on non-lawyer individuals. You don't need a trial, you don't get a jury, there is no "beyond a reasonable doubt." Supervising lawyers can be held liable for the misconduct of their subordinates with little showing of knowledge or intent regarding the misconduct.)

rayiner 7y ago

Hey remember how intel suffered for years under CEOs who were chip engineers? And then started doing really great when they moved away from that model and started hiring MBA CEOs?

Ididntdothis 7y ago
I am not saying it’s a good idea but such restrictions shouldn’t be there in a “free market/capitalist” country like the US.
dman 7y ago
If law firms run by lawyers run better, then why do they need a rule to enforce this? Shouldn't the market take care of this? ie Law Firms with Lawyer owners will simply out compete clueless Law Firms with owners who are not lawyers.
- likpok 7y ago
  "Better" is a value judgement, and the specific value you've chosen is "makes more money". One concern, I think, is that a non-lawyer may push employees towards legally-unethical behavior. Since the non-lawyer can fire the lawyers, that gives them a big stick they can use to influence the employees.
  - siegel 7y ago
    Lawyers are subject to ethical requirements that are not imposed on non-lawyers. And those ethical requirements are just that - requirements. If a lawyer breaks them, they jeopardize their entire careers. There's no equivalent for a professional CEO. Clients insist that their attorneys act in a fiduciary capacity. This is very different from the chip engineer scenario. It is the most important reason why non-lawyers are not allowed to own law firms. Because non-lawyers are not bound by rules that require them to put profit motives second in many circumstances.
- rayiner 7y ago
  Because you're not optimizing for the success of the law firms or their clients, but for the structure and integrity of the court system. That integrity depends heavily on the fact that lawyers are trusted repeat players who have a lot of exposure and are personally on the hook for any problem. (Moreover, because a law license is not a right, the due process requirements and burden of proof for disciplining lawyers is far lower than for imposing criminal penalties on non-lawyer individuals. You don't need a trial, you don't get a jury, there is no "beyond a reasonable doubt." Supervising lawyers can be held liable for the misconduct of their subordinates with little showing of knowledge or intent regarding the misconduct.)