Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Is Non-Lawyer Ownership of Law Firms Coming Soon?
Ask yourself whether the following scenario is fact or fiction in today's U.S. legal market. A large investment firm with $3 billion in assets acquires a U.S. plaintiffs' personal injury law firm after the law firm is listed on the U.S. Stock Exchange. Founded in 1935, the law firm specializes in workers' compensation claims, personal injury cases and class actions. The investment fund's acquisition of the law firm provides the law firm with "a stable capital base and a supportive operating environment," according to the law firm's press release. The fund "looks forward to working with [the law firm's] strong team of lawyers whom we are keen to retain, support and incentivize," according to the fund. The scenario is fact, not fiction. But it's a scenario that happened earlier this year in Australia with Australian law firm Slater Gordon, not in the United States. At least, not yet.
Surely, this nightmare scenario of hedge funds or other non-lawyer entities owning and controlling law firms could never happen in the United States. Don't be so sure. Powerful forces are now pushing regulators in the direction of non-lawyer ownership of law firms in the United States. Some of the forces are completely well-intentioned, but some of the forces are not so well-intentioned. The well-intentioned forces are motivated primarily by access to justice considerations. The not so well-intentioned forces are motivated primarily by crass financial considerations. The parties motivated by financial considerations include hedge funds, accounting firms, insurance companies and corporations seeking cheaper legal services, among others.
There is no legitimate question at all that the access-to-justice needs of low-income Americans are not being met. In one study, America ranked 30 out of 126 countries in meeting the access-to-justice needs of its citizens, tied with Poland and Romania. The only legitimate question is how to bridge the gap between access-to-justice needs and the availability of affordable legal services to meet those needs.
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
Role and Responsibilities of Practice Group Leaders
Ideally, the objective of defining the role and responsibilities of Practice Group Leaders should be to establish just enough structure and accountability within their respective practice group to maximize the economic potential of the firm, while institutionalizing the principles of leadership and teamwork.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Removing Restrictive Covenants In New York
In Rockwell v. Despart, the New York Supreme Court, Third Department, recently revisited a recurring question: When may a landowner seek judicial removal of a covenant restricting use of her land?