In my view, only the last alternative is responsible. Opposition will not long deter the forces that seek change because the opposition will be regarded as arising only from self-interest. Idleness in the face of fundamental change would be the height of irresponsibility. By anticipating the changes and by seeking to influence them constructively the organized bar best protects the interests of the public and of its lawyer constituency. It seems evident that mere tinkering with the Model Rules will not suffice to meet the need for change.
More imaginative action is required.
The 1982 Kutak Commission formulation of Model Rule 5.4, rejected in 1983 by the House of Delegates, would have allowed lawyers and nonlawyers to participate in law practice so long as all participating lawyers met their professional responsibilities under the Rules. If Model Rule 5.4 were amended to reflect the Kutak formulation, lawyers affiliated with accounting and other firms would be able to engage in the practice of law. While that might seem at first blush a reasonable solution, it would not be adequate to the present situation. First, the amended Rule 5.4 would be effective only in those states that chose to adopt it. At best, the adoption process would be long and uncertain.