After the bubble burst in the U.S. legal sector around 2007, Abovethelaw.com's Managing Editor David Lat added to the horror. He called it: Law was a business, not a profession.
Few in the U.S. legal sector have accepted how Lat framed the line of work that has been framed with august symbols such as that of SCOTUS and the wisdom of crowds accomplished through the jury system. After all, it is still in the control of old-line players in a business (hell, it was a always a business and a brutal one of up or out) who are straining to hold on to the world that maybe never existed except in their minds.
That is one reason why the establishment part of the legal sector, as opposed to upstarts like Jacoby & Myers, is resisting firms from becoming public companies.
That's not the situation, reports the current issue of THE ECONOMIST, in Australia and more recently Britain. Businesses can take ownership of some or all of law firms.
That new model has been correlated with higher revenues, as with Slater & Gordon in Australia, which had been the first firm in that nation to go public back in 2007. Supporters of the model also contend that the pricing of legal services comes down and that benefits the public interest in making law more accessible to Everyman.
Here in the U.S., Jacoby & Meyers is suing New York, New Jersey, and Connecticut for the right to raise outside capital, notes THE ECONOMIST. As yet, that personal injury law firm has not approached investment bankers.
Reflect: With law firms owned by businesses, will the new model tolerate hiring newbie JDs at six figures when they have no significant experience practicing law?