Do you want your kids working for an L.M.O. owned by a C.P.A.?

You may recall my November column discussing the growing trend among law firms to expand their services to compete with accounting firms and others encroaching into what traditionally has been considered the practice of law. I said then, and reiterate now, that this can be a slippery slope -- that by expanding the services we offer we may inadvertently arm our adversaries with an argument against requiring Bar admission for, and Supreme Court regulation of, the practice of law; that we may well threaten the independence of our profession.

In launching this discussion I made the obvious point that the independence of our profession is predicated upon our being held to extremely arduous ethical standards. When we as lawyers enter into areas beyond practicing law, we implicate ethical guidelines covering conflicts of interest, confidentiality, solicitation, disclosure requirements, unauthorized fee-splitting, and supervisory responsibilities over support staff, to name but a few potential problem areas.

I believe these to be extremely important issues for all lawyers as we enter the new millennium. Are we going to follow Europe in blurring to a point of near-obliteration the line between being an independent profession owing its duty to the public and a mere business enterprise owing its only allegiance to the bottom line? I hope not. Personally, I don't want my kids working for a legal maintenance organization that is a wholly owned Arthur-Andersen subsidiary.

Finding our correct course requires bringing as many minds as possible to bear on the problem. That is why I named a special committee to begin considering the many complex issues presented, and asked the chair of the study panel, Martin Garcia of Tampa, to outline and lead the discussion at our annual All-Bar Conference. In addition to the conference delegates from voluntary bars and practice sections of The Florida Bar, we for the first time invited any Bar member caring to participate in the discussion to air his or her views. It made for a lively day, I assure you.

After some excellent presentations by committee members and the experts they had assembled specifically for the All-Bar, as well as some thought-provoking questions and comments from the floor, delegates voted on some of the major points discussed.

Two of the votes convinced me that our members have been listening, and that we have not wasted resources investing in this discussion:

* Are current Florida Bar rules sufficient to deal with the conduct of lawyers who engage in ancillary businesses?

Yes: 34 percent No: 66 percent

* Should The Florida Bar adopt a specific rule that deals directly with ancillary businesses of lawyers?

Yes: 63 percent No: 37 percent

If you can get two-thirds of a large group of lawyers who already are very tightly regulated to agree there's a need for additional regulation then, indeed, you're onto something worth looking into!

The next step in the process is for the committee to report its findings and make recommendations to the Board of Governors. As this issue of the Journal went to press, Martin was set to update the board on the work of the committee, and to suggest a timeline on where we'll go from here. The Bar News will report the board's initial reaction in its May 1 edition.

These are issues that are important to all of us. I encourage each of you to not only follow the discussion, but to join it. I know the special committee and your Board of Governors representatives would like the benefit of your views. Comments may be directed to the Special Committee on Ancillary Businesses of Law Firms, The Florida Bar, 650 Apalachee Parkway, Tallahassee 32399-2300.

A Personal Note

I would be remiss if I did not take time here to thank a very good friend to Florida's legal profession for the past 35 years upon his retirement. Sid J. White stepped down as Clerk of the Supreme Court April 15, after a full generation of faithful service. From all of us, Sid -- thanks for a job well done.