Nonlawyer ownership: The end of ethics and the profession as we know it

I just read Joe Donnini's Aug. 23 article, "Is nonlawyer ownership signaling the end for solo/small firms?" No, it signals the end of putting the public interest first and the beginning of lawlessness.

Allow me to explain. I practice personal injury litigation. I am a member of the Executive Committee for the Consumer Attorneys Association of Los Angeles. I teach lawyers about the importance of putting the clients' interest first and practicing law ethically and civilly. Some days it feels like I am swimming upstream. One of the biggest issues in the personal injury world is dealing with cappers and runners, folks who solicit clients against ethical rules. What can go wrong when we allow cappers and runners to be owners of a law firm? Let's go down the path that Mr. Donnini suggested about "some [of the] exciting possibilities to allow nonlawyer equity partners to have a financial interest in law firms":

Example 1

Lawyer: Hey, Mr. Tow Truck Owner, how would you like to join my law firm as an equity partner? You can share in some of the fees from cases that your drivers refer to my firm. When you pick up a car, hand our business card and you can double, triple or even quadruple how much you make in a year. What do you say?

Tow Truck Owner: What? We can do that now? I'm in. I'm tired of dodging the insurance commissioner and State Bar. Hey, how about my cousin, Bob? He owns an auto body repair shop. He gets customers who walk in to fix their cars?

Lawyer: Tell Bob to call me.

Example 2

Lawyer: Hey, doctor. You see a lot of patients who are injured in car crashes and need surgery. How about becoming a partner with my law firm? You treat them and refer them to our firm for handling. You'll get both a medical fee and a legal fee. It's all legitimate because the State Bar said so.

Doctor: What about kickbacks? Isn't that why Michael Drobot is sitting in jail and losing all of his assets? Maybe, but State Bar said it's OK now. Doctors can join law firms now and share in the fees.

Example 3

Lawyer: Hey, Google. I hear that you are the largest search engine on the planet. How about starting a law firm where you can direct all inquiries to our firm? You can split fees 50/50. Imagine that? Forget advertising dollars? How much do you charge now? $100 for a word search? Please. How about taking 50% of each case? You'll make way more money.

I find this idea of allowing nonlawyers to practice law and to own law firms preposterous. How did the State Bar allow this committee's idea to get this far? I am all for implementing technology into the practice of law, but to allow lawyers to share fees with nonlawyers? What's the motivation behind this? Money, of course. It always comes down to money. Nonlawyers see how much money lawyers can make and want a piece of it without having to go to law school, passing the bar, and following ethical rules that have been in place for decades.

Further, the practice of law has to be individualized. No two cases are the same. While technology is wonderful, trying to standardize a "one-size-fits-all" approach does not work. The outcome of cases depends on a number of things which artificial intelligence cannot do. There is a professional judgment that is involved with evaluating and providing legal advice and services.

Please do not open Pandora box. It is already difficult trying to get lawyers to be civil and ethical. Let's not introduce a whole group of folks without any legal education, training, or license to practice law or to share fees. It'll be the Wild West in the personal injury world. 

-- Minh Nguyen

Nguyen Lawyers APC