Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-m9pkr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-10T11:22:59.692Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

MDPs May Be Dead After Enron/Andersen, But Subsidiary Businesses Thrive

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 December 2018

Jay S. Zimmerman  and
Matthew J. Kelly
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

While some commentators believe that the Enron and Arthur Andersen affair that came to light in 2001 is responsible for the demise of multidisciplinary practices (MDPs), the notion of law firms engaging in MDPs lost most of its momentum during the American Bar Association (ABA) debate of 1999 and 2000. Enron and Andersen weakened whatever support remained for MDPs after the ABA defeat, during which MDP opponents raised legitimate concerns. But Enron and Andersen did not derail all models in which law firms successfully provide nonlegal services. In fact, the law-related services ancillary business model (as referred to by the ABA's Commission on Multidisciplinary Practice) is much more relevant post-Enron. Ancillary businesses, or subsidiary businesses as they are referred to at the authors' law firm of Bingham McCutchen LLP, are not MDPs. When structured and managed in compliance with fundamental principles and regulations, subsidiary businesses give progressive law firms the ability to deliver a comprehensive bundle of integrated services in response to client needs.

Type
“From the Trenches and Towers”: MDPs After Enron/Andersen
Information
Law & Social Inquiry , Volume 29 , Issue 3 , Summer 2004 , pp. 639 - 653
Copyright
Copyright © American Bar Foundation, 2004 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

American Bar Association. 1999. Commission on Multidisciplinary Practice: Report to the House of Delegates, http://www.abanet.org/cpr/mdpreport.html.Google Scholar
American Bar Association. 2000. Commission on Multidisciplinary Practice: Report to the House of Delegates, http://www.abanet.org/cpr/mdpfinalrep2000.html.Google Scholar
Bennett, Steven Alan 1998. Hearings Before the Commission on Multidisciplinary Practice, http://www.abanet.org/cpr/bennett.html.Google Scholar
Boston Bar Association. 2001. Task Force Report on Multi-Disciplinary Practice.Google Scholar
Bower, Ward 2002. Andersen, Enron, and the ABA. Miami Daily Business Review, 18 March, A17.Google Scholar
Dzienkowski, John S., and Peroni, Robert J. 2000. Multidisciplinary Practice and the American Legal Profession: A Market Approach to Regulating the Delivery of Legal Services in the Twenty-First Century. Fordham Law Review 69:83–207.Google Scholar
Fox, Lawrence J. 2000. Accountants, the Hawks of the Professional World: They Foul Our Nest and Theirs Too, Plus Other Ruminations on the Issues of MDPs. Minnesota Law Review 84:1097–113.Google Scholar
Gibeault, John 2000. House of Delegates Vote Crushes Chances for MDP. ABA Journal, September, 92.Google Scholar
Gibeault, John 2001. Cash Boughs: Since the ABA's Rejection of Multidisciplinary Practices, More Law Firms Are Branching Out Into Law-Related Businesses. ABA Journal, February, 50.Google Scholar
Hines, Crystal Nix 2001. Competition Sprouts One-Stop Law Firms. New York Times, 31 May, C1.Google Scholar
Jones, James W., and Manning, Bayless 2000. Getting at the Root of Core Values: A “Radical” Proposal to Extend the Model Rules to Changing Forms of Legal Practice. Minnesota Law Review 84:1159–212.Google Scholar
Jones, James W., and Pepper Gavulic, Terri 2003. Law Firm Administration: A Special Report. Legal Times, 24 February.Google Scholar
Keatinge, Robert R. 2002. Multidimensional Practice in a World of Invincible Ignorance: MDP, MJP, and Ancillary Business After Enron. Arizona Law Review 44:717–73.Google Scholar
Koppel, Paul R. 2001. Under Siege From Within and Without: Why Model Rule 5.4 is Vital to the Continued Existence of the American Legal Profession. Georgetown Journal of Legal Ethics 14:687–705.Google Scholar
Matheson, John H., and Adams, Edward S. 2000. Not “If” but “How”: Reflecting on the ABA Commission's Recommendations on Multidisciplinary Practice. Minnesota Law Review 84:1269–313.Google Scholar
Michaels, Adrian, Parker, Andrew, and Sherwood, Bob 2003. Tax Bell Tolls for Big Four Auditors. Financial Times, 21 January, 1.Google Scholar
Rosenberg, Geanne 2002. Scandal Seen as Blow to Outlook for MDP. National Law Journal, 24 January, A1.Google Scholar
Sandburg, Brenda. 2002. Slowing Down the Wedding March. Broward Daily Business Review, 28 January, A9.Google Scholar
Shepherd, Ritchenya 1999. Legal and Financial Advice Under One Roof. New York Law Journal, 9 November, 5.Google Scholar
Stein, Robert A. 2000. Multidisciplinary Practices: Prohibit or Regulate Minnesota Law Review 84:1529–45.Google Scholar
Stewart, Laurie 2002. Is MDP DOA? Experts Ponder Effect of Andersen Guilty Verdict. Legal Intelligencer, 24 June 24, 1.Google Scholar
Wolfram, Charles S. 2000. The ABA and MDPs: Context, History, and Process. Minnesota Law Review 84:1625–654.Google Scholar