Abstract

The hypothetical social contract between a profession and society exchanges the privilege of self-regulation for the profession's promise to regulate itself in the public interest. When it no longer appears that the profession is exercising its privilege responsibility, there will be pressure to reform the regulation of the market for legal services, for example by allowing non-lawyers to provide legal services, or permitting lawyers to practice in partnerships with non-lawyers. So far the American profession has been relatively successful at resisting reform, and the American Bar Association's Ethics 20/20 Commission wrapped up its business by proposing only a few minor, technical changes to the rules of professional conduct. One way the profession has fended off attempts to enact more comprehensive reforms is by appealing to professional core values. This article presents several claims about professional core values and reform of professional regulation. First, the American profession has not been particularly rigorous in defining a set of core values that appeal to the interests of clients or the public interest and are not merely a rearguard attempt by the profession to protect its monopoly. Second, and related, professional core values are plural in nature and vary in application considerably according to the context. Third, there is no reason that reforms cannot be considered that better serve interests such as access to justice while also respecting core values. Fourth, regulatory form is rather far down the list of threats to professional core values, after forces such as the increasing power of in-house counsel. The conclusion is not that there is no such thing as core values, but that if the profession continues to appeal to them as a rhetorical makeweight, it may find itself overwhelmed by pressures for reform