[textbook]Traversing the Ethical Minefield Problems, Law, and Professional Responsibility by Susan R. Martyn (z-lib.org)(1) (1)

(2012).
4. See The Bounds of the Law: A Reprise, supra Chapter 14.
5. See Laurel S. Terry, Steve Mark, & Tahlia Gordon, Adopting Regulatory Objectives for the Legal Profession, 80
Fordham L. Rev. 2685 (2012); Deborah L. Rhode & Alice Woolley, Comparative Perspectives on Lawyer Regulation: An
Agenda for Reform in the United States and Canada, 80 Fordham L. Rev. 2761 (2012).
6. See MR 1.1, Comment [6]; MR 5.3, Comment [3]; MR 5.5, Comment [1]; ABA Formal Op. 08-451 (2008)
(Lawyer’s Obligations When Outsourcing Legal and Nonlegal Support Services); Council of Bars and Law Societies of
Europe, CCBE Guidelines on Legal Outsourcing (2010), available at
http://www.ccbe.eu/fileadmin/user_upload/NTCdocument/EN_Guidelines_on_leg1_1277906265.pdf (last visited
Nov. 8, 2016).
7. The lawyers had, however, provided legal services to a sister company, Esq. N.Y. This might explain why the
California court leaves open the possibility that the firm can recover for legal services provided in New York to the
California affiliate. See Birbower v. Sup. Ct., 949 P.2d 1, 14 (1998) (Kennard, J. dissenting).
8. See, e.g., In re Desilets, 291 F.3d 925 (6th Cir. 2002) (lawyer licensed to practice in Texas and admitted in a
Michigan federal court may practice law in a federal bankruptcy court in Michigan).
9. James Moliterno & George Harris, Global Issues in Legal Ethics 18-20 (West Academic 2d ed. 2014). For a chart
that details some of these provisions, see “Conditions for the admission of lawyers from non-EU Member States to the
title of the local legal profession in each EU Member State and conditions under which lawyers from non-EU Member
States can perform temporary services in each Member State under their own home title,” available at
http://www.ccbe.eu/fileadmin/user_upload/NTCdocument/gats_questionnaire_e1_1182259979.pdf (last visited Nov.
8, 2016).
10. The EU has a similar rule. Moliterno & Harris, supra note 9 at 27.
11. MR 5.4, 5.5.
12. The Kutak Commission in 1980 and the Multidisciplinary Practice Commission in 2002 recommended that
these prohibitions be repealed in favor of multidisciplinary practice, including the sharing of fees and management
control. Both were defeated. Similar recommendations have been scuttled from the Ethics 20/20 proposals to be
presented to the House of Delegates in 2012. But see D.C. Rule of Prof. Conduct 5.4(b) (2012) (allowing
multidisciplinary practice so long as lawyers in such an enterprise remained free to exercise their independent
professional judgment and to adhere to all of their professional obligations under the Model Rules).
13. See James Moliterno & George Harris, Global Issues in Legal Ethics 25-26 (West Academic 2d ed. 2014).
14. Daniel R. Fischel, Multidisciplinary Practice, 55 Bus. Law. 951, 957 (2000).
15. Lawrence J. Fox, Dan’s World: A Free Enterprise Dream; An Ethics Nightmare, 55 Bus. Law. 1533 (2000).
16. Lawrence J. Fox, MDPs Done Gone: The Silver Lining in the Very Black Enron Cloud, 44 Ariz. L. Rev. 547 (2002).
17. In Wouters v. Algemene Raad de Nederlandse Orde van Advocaten, 2002 ECR I-1577 (2002), the European
Court of Justice of the European Communities upheld a ban on partnerships between lawyers and other professionals
adopted by the Bar of the Netherlands. The Court held that despite its restrictive effects on competition, the regulation
was “necessary for the proper practice of the legal profession,” even though other EU member states allowed MDPs. See
also In re Evans, 902 A.2d 56 (D.C. App. 2006) (lawyer who owned title insurance company took several shortcuts and
erred in significant ways in handling the probate matter to gain title insurance income suspended for six months
because his personal financial conflict of interest was a “central factor” in his misconduct).
18. Prince Jefri Bolkiah v. KPMG, 2 A.C. 222, 2 W.L.R. 215 (H.L. 1998).
490