The most prestigious law school admissions discussion board in the world.
|
 |
 
|
AZ's "non lawyer ownership" law will put final nail in Law Life
| gaped chapel | 07/23/25 |
| cerebral office | 07/23/25 |
| Coiffed jewess address | 07/23/25 |
| cerebral office | 07/23/25 |
| gaped chapel | 07/23/25 |
| Exciting casino | 07/23/25 |
| mustard soul-stirring step-uncle's house shitlib | 07/23/25 |
| spruce messiness | 07/23/25 |
| Pink sickened property | 07/23/25 |
Poast new message in this thread
Date: July 23rd, 2025 11:37 AM Author: gaped chapel As of September 2024 non-lawyers can own law firms in AZ. I imagine this de-reg will spread, and I dont think the ABA will do shit about it.
Basically, any fucker with money can now locate the "law firm" in Arizona, retain total ownership, and just farm out lawyer work. Imagine partners who dont need to bother to be lawyers.
People doing the lawyer shit will basically be janitorial staff. |
Date: July 23rd, 2025 11:45 AM Author: cerebral office This will spread like wildfire in northern Siberian winter.
Our trial lawyers own the state legislature more than I own my own paralegals. They hand-select the SC justices and have veto power over the lower-court judges.
If you want to throw around an anti-lawyer policy to scare ppl, you might as well go full Henry VI Pt.2 with it — it’s just as likely to happen. |
 |
Date: July 23rd, 2025 11:49 AM Author: Coiffed jewess address I think his point is that one state opens the door to non lawyer/ PE ownership of a law firm and race to the bottom will follow.
That Arizona law firm - valid under state law - can employ lawyers in AZ or remotely licensed to practice in multiple states. there's nothing to stop them from running a nationwide practice out of AZ that would insulate other states from competition. |
|
Date: July 23rd, 2025 12:00 PM Author: cerebral office That's not his point (or if it is, it's a silly point). He's talking about a deregulatory trend, like when various waves of reciprocity/waiver rules swept the nation (the fed courts almost all required local admission 15 years ago), and possibly eventually the SC making it a national prerogative (like when they struck down Nevada's LJL rule barring firms where every lawyer was not NV-barred).
A state can prohibit out-of-state lawyers from practicing in-state just as easily now as it ever could. If anything, something like this could galvanize legislatures/courts to make regulation/discipline or, even more formidable, liability for unlicensed practice even more of a fish-in-a-barrel shoot than it already is. |
|
Date: July 23rd, 2025 12:08 PM Author: gaped chapel this is indeed happening (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5753689&forum_id=2#49124593) |
|
Date: July 23rd, 2025 12:28 PM Author: Exciting casino (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5753689&forum_id=2#49124652) |
|
Date: July 23rd, 2025 12:36 PM Author: mustard soul-stirring step-uncle's house shitlib I doubt this will change anything. Lawyers are the most underrated business managers in the marketplace. PE shops and non-lawyer owners will soon find out that they can’t do any better. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5753689&forum_id=2#49124689) |
|
Date: July 23rd, 2025 1:26 PM Author: spruce messiness Law is still relationship based. I’m not sure how you can convince a partner with a big book to come to your firm if a PE firm is taking a huge cut of the profits for nothing.Also seems like it would make retaining talent way harder. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5753689&forum_id=2#49124840) |
|
Date: July 23rd, 2025 1:27 PM Author: Pink sickened property this has killed independent optometrists, veterinarians, dentists, and pharmacists. might as well kill solos, too. turns out customers don't give a shit about having a relationship with a local practitioner, they just want the lowest price (and the right to bitch about it when it backfires on them). (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5753689&forum_id=2#49124845) |