This study transgresses the received distinction between two genres: the scholarly essay and the grant proposal. An extended reflection on a research endeavor still in progress, it interrogates the methodological and conceptual questions raised, ab initio, by the effort to explore and explain an unusually perplexing phenomenon: the dramatic rise, in postapartheid South Africa, of witchcraft killings–and of their policing, both formal and informal, which has produced distinctly hybrid styles of cultural justice. Our objective is to address a number of interrelated questions concerning the description, interpretation, and analysis of (I) occult-related violence, itself legitimized locally by populist appeals to “culture” and (2) its regulation by a secular modernist state committed to, yet challenged by, the constitutional recognition of cultural difference. It is our thesis that this “epidemic” of occult-related violence, and the kinds of cultural policing that accompany it, are stark expressions of a structural contradiction within the “new” South Africa, a contradiction evinced in all postcolonies–and, increasingly, in other nation-states as well

In this article, the author applies social closure theory to help explain why more than a dozen states have recently enacted more stringent bar exam passing standards and why others are considering similar changes. While higher standards are usually advocated as a way to protect the public from lower student “quality,” the author applies social closure theory and argues that changes in passing standards are a response to a perceived oversupply of lawyers, especially among solo practitioners. In the 1990s, crowding among solo practitioners reached record levels, and real earnings eroded substantially. The author then links this labor market analysis to a critical examination of the knowledge claims that justify the bar exam to the legal profession and the public at large. The article's conclusion is that the psychometric research sponsored by the National Conference of Bar Examiners consistently minimizes and obscures the disparate impact and unfairness of the bar exam for people of color.

The three articles that make up this “trenches and towers” symposium address the future of multidisciplinary legal practice (MDP) after the regulatory fallout of the Enron scandal. The fallout brought the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, restricting accountants in providing consulting and legal services, and the demise of Arthur Andersen—which had been a global leader in linking law to the major accounting firms.

Reconsidering the original report issued in 1999 by the ABA Commission on Multidisciplinary Practice, this essay suggests that that report properly attempted to deal with questions of legal ethics that might arise if the practice of law by lawyers were integrated into an enterprise in which nonlawyers had a significant degree of ultimate control, but that the commission, perhaps because of undue time pressure, neglected to pursue these questions deeply enough. This essay suggests that more was needed than a proposed mechanism for self-certification of compliance with rules of legal ethics, coupled with possible review of compliance. The “more” that was needed, this essay further suggests, was a proposal for the licensing of an enterprise in which lawyers do not have exclusive ultimate control, as a precondition to permitting lawyers in the enterprise to offer legal services to the general public. Thus, before it could offer legal services to the general public, such an enterprise would need to comply with requirements for obtaining a license, and noncompliance with rules of legal ethics could bring into play traditional disciplinary measures including, where appropriate, suspension or revocation of the license.

This article uses interviews and comparative professional histories to explore the stakes of the battle—pre-Enron and seen in reactions to the Enron crisis—between the organized bar and the multidisciplinary practices (MDPs) associated with the Big Five accounting firms and their law firms. The paper examines modes of professional practice—family, Continental corporate law, and the Cravath model—to describe the tensions and potential solutions to maintaining professional legitimacy without appearing too close to business or economic power. The paper then seeks to explain preliminarily why the MDP debate became so strong in the United States despite the fact that the actual threat to U.S. corporate lawyers appeared relatively small. It suggests that the interjection of the Big Five potentially threatened a relatively precarious professional legitimacy with different impacts for different sectors of the bar.

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.