{"id":4666,"date":"2004-01-20T22:47:10","date_gmt":"2004-01-21T02:47:10","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blogs.law.harvard.edu\/formerlyknownas\/2004\/01\/20\/connecticuts-lawyer-guild-cba"},"modified":"2011-08-05T15:00:30","modified_gmt":"2011-08-05T19:00:30","slug":"connecticuts-lawyer-guild-cba-rejects-mjp","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/2004\/01\/20\/connecticuts-lawyer-guild-cba-rejects-mjp\/","title":{"rendered":"Connecticut’s Lawyer Guild (CBA) Rejects MJP"},"content":{"rendered":"

<\/a><\/p>\n

\"dinos\" . . .<\/FONT><\/P>
\n

In an amazing display of a professional guild protecting its turf, the Connecticut Bar Association voted to reject proposed changes to Rule 5.5 that would have allowed out-of-state lawyers the limited ability to practice in Connecticut without a state law license<\/FONT><\/P>
\n

According to the Connecticut Law Tribune<\/EM> and Law.com<\/A>, the controversial Multijurisdictional Practice (MJP) proposal failed before the Connecticut Bar Association’s House of Delegates last week by a vote of 28-18.  “Opponents said loosening the rules would help a minority of lawyers at the expense of the rest of the Bar, which would be left vulnerable to firms looking to make further inroads into the local market.”  (<\/FONT>“Conn. Bar Association Delegates Reject MJP Rule Change: <\/SPAN><\/FONT>Forces rally in support of status quo,” by <\/FONT>Scott Brede <\/FONT><\/FONT>The Connecticut Law Tribune<\/FONT><\/A>, 01-21-2004)<\/FONT><\/SPAN><\/P>
\n

According to the article, George J, Cava, an opponent of the proposed rule change, who represented real property lawyers, wrote that (emphasis added):<\/FONT><\/SPAN><\/P>
\n


\n

“Connecticut is a high-cost state. Competition from lawyers in low-overhead states makes the practice of law a race for the bottom we cannot win. Having built reputable practices, can our members afford the inevitable reduction in compensation they will have to absorb to remain competitive<\/U> with the bottom fishers from 49 other states?” <\/FONT><\/SPAN><\/P><\/BLOCKQUOTE>
\n

Paul L. Costas, the chairman of the CBA Multijurisdictional Practice Task Force, and a primary advocate for the rule change, opined that “There are too many lawyers who still believe we can practice law like we did in the early 1900s.”  <\/P>
\n

ethicalEsq<\/EM> can only add: There are too many lawyers who still believe that maintaining compensation levels is their primary professional goal.  Compensation always beats competition and client interests.<\/P>
\n