Lawyer Regulation Stakeholder Networks and the Global Diffusion of Ideas
Laurel S. Terry, Lawyer Regulation Stakeholder Networks and the Global Diffusion of Ideas, 33 Georgetown J. of Legal Ethics 1069 (2020)
42 Pages Posted: 13 Aug 2020 Last revised: 21 Aug 2020
Date Written: 2020
This Article is a companion article to Laurel S. Terry, Global Networks and the Legal Profession, 53 Akron L. Rev. 137 (2019), https://ssrn.com/abstract=3620399. That article explained why global networks are useful for lawyers and the clients they represent, introduced some of the scientific literature about networks, cited prior literature about (mostly domestic) legal profession networks, and then identified ways in which lawyers and their employers, including law firms, participate in global legal profession networks, as well as domestic networks.
This Article focuses on a subset of global legal profession networks, which are the global networks of lawyer regulation stakeholders. Section 1 sets forth ten different categories of lawyer regulation stakeholders, explains and distinguishes these categories, and provides examples from each stakeholder category. The ten categories are: 1) those on whose behalf regulations are adopted; 2) traditional U.S. lawyer regulators; 3) groups that represent, and are primarily comprised of, traditional U.S. lawyer regulators; 4) groups that purport to offer expert balanced advice to traditional U.S. lawyer regulators; 5) other U.S. regulators whose actions directly affect lawyer regulation; 6) those who do not have “hard law” regulatory authority over lawyers, but interact with lawyers and may be able to enforce regulatory-like rules or compliance; 7) those who are directly affected by lawyer regulation provisions (but are not the population for whose benefit lawyer regulations are adopted); 8) additional individuals or entities within the United States that may be affected by, or care about, U.S. lawyer regulation issues; 9) foreign governments, intergovernmental organizations, and international dispute resolution bodies that have adopted policies or rules that may directly or indirectly affect U.S. lawyer regulation; and 10) additional individuals or entities outside the United States that may be affected by, or care about, U.S. lawyer regulation.
Section 2 sets forth five ways in which U.S. stakeholders might interact with global stakeholders, or be exposed to global perspectives. These opportunities arise as a result of: 1) in-person meetings and conferences; 2) virtual meetings and events; 3) literature written about, or influenced by, global developments and perspectives; 4) law reform initiatives, such as those in Utah, California, Arizona, and Illinois; and 5) membership in “domestic” groups that likely include global perspectives. For each of the five identified opportunities, this Article provides several examples that illustrate how U.S. lawyer regulation stakeholders are connected to global networks. In addition to the lawyer regulation reform initiatives cited above, the examples include global connections within groups such as the NCBE, CCJ, NOBC, ABA, AALS, APRL, ICLR, IBA, and IAOLE, among others. Section 3 of this Article refers to literature about the diffusion of ideas and tipping points. After summarizing the broad impact that global networks can have, this Article concludes that global networks, and the perspectives they bring, should now be viewed as a regular part of U.S. lawyer regulation stakeholder conversations. This Article was written before the explosive growth of COVID-19, but that outbreak confirms the importance of global networks and the power that exponential growth within networks can have.
Keywords: networks, lawyer regulation, stakeholders, global networks, regulatory objectives, International Association of Legal Ethics, APRL, International Conference of Legal Regulators, International Bar Association, NCBE, CCJ, NOBC, APRL, Law Society of England and Wales, California ATILS, Utah Reforms
JEL Classification: L8, L84, K33, N70
Suggested Citation: Suggested Citation