2. 考研
  3. Jacoby & Myers, a pioneer in fighting in the 1970s for lawyers’ right to advertise, embodies what many people dislike about Amer

Jacoby & Myers, a pioneer in fighting in the 1970s for lawyers’ right to advertise, embodies what many people dislike about Amer

admin2014-06-25  60
问题     Jacoby & Myers, a pioneer in fighting in the 1970s for lawyers’ right to advertise, embodies what many people dislike about American lawyers. The firm appeals new clients with advertisements which lure people with dreams of huge payouts. "Remember that guy? Who came in second at the last New York Marathon? Neither do we. Winning is everything," boasted one of its commercials in 2011.
    Today, the firm is trying to win another suit to change the rules of America’s legal industry. If successful, the suit would allow non-lawyer investors to put money in a law firm. Currently law firms, whether a "single shingle" or one like Jones Day may have only one corporate form anywhere except the District of Columbia: a partnership owned only by lawyers.
    Jacoby & Myers says that the existing rules violate its freedoms of speech and assembly. It has lined up non-lawyer investors who would buy a chunk of the firm and share its profits, if allowed to do so. Andrew Finkelstein, the firm’s managing partner, says that outside capital would allow the firm to upgrade technology and take advantage of scale, whose is simply to give more clients with low incomes access to justice.
    The American Bar Association(ABA), which indirectly sets the rules that regulate lawyers, opposes the change. Lawyers, it argues, are not businesspeople with a duty to the bottom line, but professionals with an ethical duty to their clients’ best interests. Outside investors could push lawyers to file junk suits or take quick settlements to maximise profits.
    Yet the reality on the ground in America suggests that change is badly needed. Many law firms are less than the sum of their parts. Partners are semi-independent barons, complete with associate lawyers as serfs. Nearly all work is billed by the hour, meaning efficiency destroys revenue. By contrast, an integrated firm with professional managers and modern computer systems could develop processes that are re-peatable. A few small American firms are already trying to run themselves more like modern businesses, and are delighting clients with quick, high-quality work and predictable fees. Allowing outside investment would boost the number and size of such firms.
    Even if Jacoby & Myers loses this round, experiences abroad may change the debate in America. Several years ago, Australia allowed "alternative business structures", including non-lawyer ownership of firms, and even public flotation. Last year the Legal Services Act brought similar rules to Britain. The Co-op, best known for its supermarkets, has announced plans to offer cheap legal services. More than 300 British law firms are waiting to become alternative business structures under the new law, according to Jomati, a legal consultancy.
    Provided that few serious ethical complaints surface, it will be harder for the ABA to claim that outside investment necessarily corrupts lawyers. Jomati’s boss Tony Williams gently mocks the lawyers’ hand-wringing about the death of the "profession". "The question ’are you a business or a profession?’ is nonsense. You’re both. "
ABA opposes non-lawyer investment with the reason that______.
选项 A、its regulating power might be challenged
B、it might face serious ethical complaints
C、investors might pain clients with quick work
D、investors might corrupt lawyers with profits
答案D
解析 第四段指出ABA的站位：反对变革；并分析原因：它认为律师是为民服务的专业型人才而非唯利是图的商人，律师会因业外投资者迫使被迫提请垃圾案件或是快速处理案件以追求最大化利润。可见，ABA反对变革在于害怕业外投资者会以利润为由致使律师腐败，[D]选项正确。
转载请注明原文地址:https://jikaoti.com/ti/DNMRFFFM
0

考研英语一

相关试题推荐
随机试题
最新回复(0)