October 05, 2011

MDP Information

January 18, 2005

Alabama Studying Pro and con reports submitted, asking for member comments on reports.
Alaska Nothing No formal study.
Arizona Deferred Task force drafted Rule amendments (5.4, 1.6,1.7,1.10, 1.15, 1.16, 5.5, 5.3, 5.5, and the advertising rules) that were presented to the Board of Governors in November 2001. On April 18, 2002 the Board deferred a vote on the proposals indefinitely.
Arkansas Rejected House of Delegates rejected a proposal to allow MDPs.
California Pro The Task Force filed its report on June 29, 2001. The Board of Governors has postponed action on the report until at least December 2004 so that State Bar staff will be available to facilitate the California Supreme Court's pending MJP implementation study.
Colorado Pro Board of Governors has adopted a resolution supporting MDPs. A subcommittee of the MDP Task Force is drafting proposed new rules and rules amendments to permit MDPs.
Connecticut Studying Task force filed report in May 2000 that recommended no changes in the ethics rules and continued study of the issue.
Delaware Rejected Committee determined that MDP should not be permitted in Delaware beyond current practices of law firms associated with incorporation businesses, etc. However, if the ABA changes its position, Delaware will reconsider.
District of Columbia Rejected On Oct. 19, 2001 the Special Committee on Multidisciplinary Practice unanimously approved its report, which stated that existing restrictions on lawyer participation on multidisciplinary practice should be substantially reduced. On May 14, 2002, the Bar Board of Governors voted to approve the report. The Board transmitted the report and its recommendation for approval to the D.C. Court of Appeals. On December 21, 2004, the Court of Appeals responded that adoption of the recommendation was not warranted at this time and that the Court remained open to reconsideration at some future time.
Florida Rejected Board of Governors adopted a resolution opposing MDPs.
Georgia Pro Committee submitted report on February 8, 2001 that recommended that the rules be changed to permit MDPs. Consideration of the report has not yet been placed on the Board of Governor's agenda.
Hawaii Nothing No committee.
Idaho Dormant Committee voted to disband.


Pro Report

Con Report

Rejected Assembly voted to support resolution before ABA to make no change to model rules.
Indiana Rejected Committee filed report on April 9, 2001 that recommended that the rules be changed to permit MDP. On Jan. 24, 2002 the House of Delegates voted against the recommendation.
Iowa Monitoring Committee filed report on January 19, 2001 that recommended that it continue monitoring developments relating to MDP.
Kansas Rejected Board of Governors voted to oppose MDPs.
Kentucky Rejected Committee voted to oppose MDPs.
Louisiana Nothing No committee.
Maine Pro Task force report recommends review of rules to permit MDP if lawyers are in control of MDP.
Maryland Rejected Board of Governors voted against any rule changes regarding MDPs in September, 2000.
Massachusetts Nothing No Committee.
Michigan Postponed Task force recommends changes to rule on ancillary services, but does not permit fully integrated MDPs. On February 10, 2001 the Representative Assembly indefinitely postponed consideration of the recommendations.
Minnesota Rejected General Assembly has adopted a pro-MDP task force report.  In January 2002, the task force filed a petition to the state Supreme Court to adopt specific rule amendments to allow for MDP. A hearing was held on July 16, 2002. On September 17, 2002 the Supreme Court entered an order denying the petition.
Mississippi Nothing Task force has been disbanded.
Missouri Neutral Board of Governors supported neither ABA Commission report nor MacCrate Commission report. Urges consideration of core values including lawyer controlled MDPs if allowed.
Montana Studying Committee working on issue.
Nebraska Rejected House of Delegates voted to oppose MDPs.
Nevada Nothing No information available.
New Hampshire Studying In process of asking for member comments regarding MDPs.
New Jersey Rejected Board of Trustees accepted task force report opposing MDPs.
New Mexico Dormant Task force discontinued work in 2002.
New York Rejected Special committee issued extensive report opposing MDPs but clarifying ancillary business provisions.  The Court of Appeals amended the New York Code of Professional Responsibility in line with the report's recommendations, effective Nov. 1, 2001.
North Carolina Dormant Task force issued report on Sept. 13, 2000 supporting lawyer controlled MDPs. Task force collected responses from bar members and reported to the Board of Governors in October 2001. No action is pending.

North Dakota Studying Has been referred to Joint Commission on Attorney Standards for monitoring. The committee is reviewing activities of other states and has not taken substantive action.
Ohio Rejected On May 17, 2000 the OSBA Council of Delegates approved a report that concluded that MDP should not be authorized or sanctioned.
Oklahoma Studying Board of Governors is studying issue.
Oregon Rejected House of Delegates voted against MDPs in September, 2000.
Pennsylvania Rejected House of Delegates voted to oppose commission report recommending lawyer controlled MDPs.
Rhode Island Rejected House of Delegates voted against MDPs on October 30, 2000.
South Carolina Rejected Task force report recommended that rules be modified to permit MDPs with a specified list of professions, requiring petition to state supreme court to form MDP. During the House of Delegate's Meeting in January, 2002 the task force presented a request for approval of the report. The request was denied.
South Dakota Pro As first step, committee has recommended a definition of the practice of law.
Tennessee Rejected Task force issued report opposing ABA Commission recommendation to allow MDPs.
Texas Rejected Board of Directors accepted task force report to oppose MDPs at this time.
Utah Rejected On January 26, 2001, the Utah Bar Commission unanimously approved the recommendations of the Utah MDP Task Force. On February 15, 2001 the Utah State Bar filed a petition asking that after the Advisory Committee completes its study and recommendations, the Court authorize amendments to the Rules of Professional Conduct to permit multi-disciplinary practice. The Utah Supreme Court's "Rules" committee came out against the MDP proposal. On January 30, 2002, the Utah State Bar's Past-President and the Chair of the Utah State Bar MDP Task Force met with the Utah Supreme Court and representatives from the Court's Rules Committee. On April 2, 2002 the Court denied the Bar's petition on MDP, expressing its willingness to reconsider the concept in the future "in light of experience that may be gained from other jurisdictions dealing with the multidisciplinary issue."
Vermont Nothing No discussion.
Virginia Rejected Commission issued a report on October 1, 2001 recommending that lawyers be permitted to practice in fully integrated MDPs.  In June 2002, the Council of the Virginia State Bar voted to reject the report of the Commission.
Washington Divided Study Group filed report in July 2001.
West Virginia Rejected Board of Governors adopted report of committee to oppose MDPs.
Wisconsin Rejected The Multidisciplinary Practice Commission recommended that the Wisconsin Rules of Professional Conduct be amended to permit lawyer controlled MDPs with approved professions. On Nov. 8, 2002 the State Bar Board of Governors rejected the Commission's recommendation.
Wyoming Rejected On May 2002, the MDP Committee filed a report recommending that the Wyoming State Bar continue its prohibition against multidisciplinary practice.