초록 열기/닫기 버튼
This article reviews the dispute on the introduction of multidisciplinary practice(hereinafter MDP) into Korean legal Market, by making a reference to the preceding experiences in other developed countries including, inter alia, the U.S. Prohibition of MDP can be said to be the firm position of Act on Lawyers,for the Act has always prohibited charged referral services, non-lawyer’s employment of lawyers to provide legal services to clients and any types of fee-splitting(Article 34), the reason allegedly being protection of independence of the profession and other core values cherished by lawyers such as protection of clients’ confidential information and avoidance of conflict of interests. Similar position can easily be found in all over the major countries in the world. But in the last decades there emerged a new trend to allow MDP around the world. In the continental Europe, France, Netherlands, Swiss, Germany and Swiss are known to allow one or another type of MDPs. In the Anglo-American legal family, major states in Australia adopted alternative business structure,meaning introduction of incorporated legal practice, MDP and non-lawyers’investment in law firms. The government of United Kingdom adopted Legal Service Act(2007), also allowing alternative business structure. In case of the U.S. debates on MDP started in 1970s and revived vigorously in the end of 1990s, when Commission on Multidisciplinary Practice was launched to find out whether the revision of Model Rules of Professional Responsibility is need in relation with provision of legal services including in the form of MDP. After long discussion among lawyers and consultation with the interested groups the Commission unanimously proposed a recommendation in support of MDP with saying that there were overwhelming supports from lawyers and non-lawyers as well and that no serious objection was found. But the ABA House of Delegates adopted Resolution 10F, simply rejecting the Commission’s recommendation. The Resolution, however, could not subdued the dispute. The dispute never decreased,only to get more and more intensified such that the ABA does not seem to have any alternative but to allow MDP. The most important point we should keep in mind here is that behind the pressure for the MDP lies the issue of competitiveness of American law firms which have to share the global legal market with firms from other countries. The same pressure is due to apply on the Korean legal market with effectuation of FTAs with EU, US or other countries. Current disputes on MDP in Korea should be reviewed in the context of the changes in the global legal market. It is not so much a matter of legal ethics as a matter of survival and prosperity of the Korean legal service providers and the Korean society in general. I argue that it is better to preemptively allow MPD in Korea, preparing at the same time for the measures to tackle side effects of the MDP, which, I believe, is not as serious as reluctant lawyers may fear.
키워드열기/닫기 버튼
multidisciplinary practice, global legal market, legal ethics, American Bar Association(ABA), competitiveness
