The ethical concerns are greater under fully integrated MDPs than under the partially integrated model. The partially integrated model requires attorneys to maintain the majority control in the firm to make certain that profit considerations do not outweigh the core value decisions of the profession. This is the recommendation from the NCBA MDP Task Force. Those who oppose MDPs are concerned that if the legal profession allows itself to be integrated with other professions that we have forever lost the chance to strengthen the traditional legal practice. Degradation of the legal profession leaves the client unprotected.
Attorneys are the only profession who zealously advocates for the client.
The opponents to MDPs do not believe the legislature will look lightly on the consumer protection that attorneys offer to clients. These people believe that the practice of law is not in danger at the General Assembly, and they encourage the regulators of the practice of law to increase their efforts. Those who oppose MDPs counter the arguments of those who favor MDPs by pointing out that attorneys would still have to hire and work with independent professionals. For instance, the example cited above that pairs a family law attorney and a psychologist would be limited by the fact that the psychologist could not effectively testify at trial because his or her testimony would not be objective. Partners of attorneys could not be deemed impartial in a trial, and independent experts would still have to be hired.