Drawing out the deeper questions of pragmatism, professional autonomy, argues, contrary to the dominant academic opinion in the field, that the empirical underpinnings of multidisciplinary practice (MDP) are weak as are its theoretical justifications and overall compatibility with the policy imperatives of true professionalism. The Article is in a sense a response to the observation of the eminent scholar of the legal profession, Professor Charles Wolfram that, "shockingly little has been written in opposition to MDP." The Article critically examines and refutes the arguments deployed in support of MDP, a subject that has attracted much attention in recent times as manifest in the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, which addressed the issue primarily from the perspective of safeguarding the independence of the accountant. Unlike the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, however, this Article approaches the subject primarily from the perspective of safeguarding the lawyers' independence and ancillary democratic values.
George C. Nnona,
Towards a Reformed Conception of Multidisciplinary Practice ,
56 Clev. St. L. Rev.
available at https://engagedscholarship.csuohio.edu/clevstlrev/vol56/iss3/4