Putting the Legal Profession’s Monopoly on the Practice of Law in a Global Context

When considering the proper scope of the U.S. legal profession’s monopoly, regulators and commentators may find it useful to compare the scope of the U.S. monopoly with the legal profession monopolies found in other countries. This Article surveys what we know—and do not know—about the scope of the monopoly in countries other than the United States. The Article finds that the state of knowledge on this topic is relatively undeveloped, that the scope of the U.S. legal profession’s monopoly appears to be larger than the scope of the monopoly found in some other countries, but that the “conventional wisdom” may be incorrect with respect to the scope of the legal profession’s monopoly outside of the United States. It discusses some relatively new developments that may contribute to our knowledge in this area, including reports from the World Trade Organization, the European Union, and the International Bar Association. It also suggests that relatively new organizations, such as the International Conference of Legal Regulators and the International Association of Legal Ethics, might contribute to our knowledge about legal regulation around the world

From GATS to APEC: The Impact of Trade Agreements on Legal Services

This article provides a comprehensive overview of the treatment of legal services in the United States‘ international trade agreements. Although many individuals are now familiar with the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS), far fewer realize that legal services are included in at least fifteen international trade agreements to which the United States is a party. This article begins by identifying those trade agreements and other developments including the 2009 Legal Services Initiative of the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC). The article continues by explaining the structure of the GATS and comparing its provisions to the provisions found in the NAFTA and in other international trade agreements. The article includes several tables that compare the structure and content of the fifteen trade agreements applicable to legal services. The fourth section of the article reviews legal services-related implementation efforts, including GATS Track #1 developments related to the Doha Round negotiations, GATS Track #2 developments regarding the development of ―any necessary disciplines,‖ implementation efforts for other trade agreements, and developments that are indirectly related to these trade agreements. The final section of the article addresses the impact of trade agreements on U.S. lawyer regulation. It concludes that these trade agreements, which reflect larger developments in our society, have affected the vocabulary, landscape and stakeholders involved in U.S. lawyer regulation

The Bologna Process and Its Impact in Europe: It\u27s so Much More than Degree Changes

The Bologna Process is a massive, multi-year project designed to create the European Higher Education Area by the year 2010. it began ten eyars ago, when four European Union (EU) countries signed a relatively vague declaration. It has grown to include forty-six countries, including all of the EU Member States and nineteen non-EU countries. The Bologna Process countries have agreed on ten action lines for restructuring European higher education. These action lines are nothing short of revolutionary - they address everything from a three-cycle degree system (e.g., bachelor-master\u27s-doctorate degrees), European-wide quality assurance efforts, mobility of higher education students and staff, recognition in one European country of studies undertaken in another European country, and the suitability of education for the marketplace. Because of the number of countries participating in the Bologna Process, its ambitious goals, and its demonstrated commitment to achieving those goals, the Bologna Process is an extremely significant development that will be important not only in Europe but elsewhere in the world. This Article is designed to provide one-stop shopping for understanding the Bologna Process, which will allow the reader to learn about all of its initiatives and action lines, and to understand and place in context future developments. This Article covers developments through the May 2007 Ministerial meeting. It concludes with an examination of the impact of the Bologna Process on European higher education, including legal education

GAT\u27s Applicability to Transnational Lawyering and its Potential Impact on U.S. State Regulation of Lawyers

This Article examines the impact of the General Agreement on Trade in Services, or GATS, on legal services, and more specifically on the legal ethics rules in the United States. The Article begins by explaining background information about the global nature of legal services. Then, the Author details the structure and operation of the GATS, including its relevant exemptions, and its applicability to legal services. Next, the Article explores developments that have occurred since the signing of the GATS, including the possible significance to U.S. regulation of the legal profession. Subsequently, the Author identifies remaining questions about the effects of the GATS on U.S. legal ethics in the twenty-first century and identifies possible scenarios to which the GATS might be applied. Lastly, the Author calls for an increase in monitoring of, and participation in, the ongoing GATS 2000 negotiations by U.S. laywers who may be affected by its results

The European Commission Project Regarding Competition in Professional Services

One goal of this article is to help EU Member States\u27 policy-makers and citizens understand the broad-brush nature of the EU Initiative and remember that it was a call for further investigation by EU Member States. This article provides a detailed case study of the EU Initiative so that as many individuals as possible in the European Union can understand the issues at stake and participate in rigorous discussions about the justifications for, and costs and benefits of, particular lawyer regulation rules in particular countries. Although one goal of this article is to empower European stakeholders and policy-makers, it is not this article\u27s only goal. The EU Initiative is certainly important because of the profound effect it has had and will continue to have on the regulation of the legal profession in Europe. There is an additional reason, however, why it is important. In a globalized world, regulatory changes that happen in one country are increasingly likely to be reproduced in some fashion in other countries.5 Thus, the European Union\u27s legal profession antitrust initiatives are important because they have the potential to migrate and change the nature of the lawyer regulation debate in the United States. Other countries, including Canada, have launched similar inquiries. For this reason, it is useful for U.S. lawyers to be familiar with the EU Initiative. In my view, there is an important role to be served by a detailed case study that shows how and when the EU Initiative evolved so that U.S. lawyers can be better prepared to respond should a similar development jump the pond to the United States. This is particularly important in light of the EU Initiative\u27s tidal wave momentum, which has been cited in OECD and EU studies and by countries such as Canada

The Legal World is Flat: Globalization and Its Effect on Lawyers Practicing in Non-Global Law Firms

While lawyers in these large global law firms usually are aware of why globalization is relevant to them, other U.S. lawyers may not think that the globalization phenomenon affects them. A comment frequently heard is Law is local so I don\u27t have to worry about globalization affecting me or my practice. The goal of this article is to look at Friedman\u27s work through the lens of legal services and to answer several questions, including: Whether Friedman\u27s analysis is relevant to what has happened in the field of legal services; Whether a U.S. lawyer who doesn\u27t practice in a global law firm should care about globalization and what Friedman says; and If so, what, if anything, can or should a U.S. lawyer do in response to globalization