> > Tommy don't you have it backwards? The intent is to have the majority of the firm owned by professionals, so professional decisions are made and followed, not decisions made and enforced by a non licensed majority owner. A true professional should not be insulted by this requirement, after all it protects both him and the clients.
> > jud
>
> The implication is that professional decisions cannot be made unless the professional owns stock in the company. Frankly, I think that is insulting.
I see what you are saying Tommy. The thinking of the board is that no PLS should find themselves in a position where "the boss" says they have to sign something or be fired. If "the boss" is a PLS he can sign the document or not.
Where the whole argument falls apart is when on realizes that these rules apply only to corporations. Anyone can own a sole proprietorship and employ a PLS to supervise and sign the work1.
Larry P
1 At least that is so in NC.
>
> Where the whole argument falls apart is when on realizes that these rules apply only to corporations. Anyone can own a sole proprietorship and employ a PLS to supervise and sign the work1.
>
> Larry P
>
> 1 At least that is so in NC.
Not in NY.
Ralph
