CTLA asks to join Jacoby & Meyers v. Judges of the Superior Court: Argues that lawyer self regulation is at risk

CTLA’s principal argument against  Jacoby & Meyers’ bid to have a federal court judge enjoin enforcement of the state court rule barring non-lawyer investment in law firms is that allowing non-lawyers to own law firms would spell the end of lawyer self-regulation ” by creating a class of persons [non-lawyer investors / owners]  who would be in a position to control legal practices and yet would not fall under the authority of the Rules.”  In other words,  non-lawyer investors / owners would “incentivize” “their” lawyers to bring in money to the firm never mind the Rules. (Sound familiar?)   CTLA argues that the grievance process currently protects PI clients (one hopes this argument is off the mark; and that what protects PI clients is lawyer self-regulation), but that the grievance process would be of no use against unscrupulous non-lawyer investors / owners.  (But the grievance process would  still provide “protection” against lawyer misconduct. And then there might be malpractice insurance.  How would insurance companies underwrite malpractice risks for firms owned by non-lawyers?)  If allowed to join the case as an amici, CTLA will surely develop their arguments, which are important.

For CTLA’s Memorandum In Support of its Motion for Permission to Join as Amicus Curiae click here.