Menu
Top Five Stories of 2023
We've compiled our top five stories of 2023. Starting December 18, we'll be updating this page every weekday until we reach #1. Subscribe to our e-newsletter to receive these updates in your mailbox.
#1: Litigation Continues on First Amendment Right to Legal Advice
Two recent cases may be the start of a trend of courts protecting people’s First Amendment right to receive legal advice—whether from a lawyer or from someone else.
In New York, a federal trial court granted an injunction allowing a nonprofit to provide limited legal advice to people facing debt collection lawsuits. That case is currently awaiting a decision from an appellate court. In South Carolina, the NAACP is asking courts to be permitted to give free legal advice to tenants facing eviction. That case has bounced between federal and state court on procedural grounds.
In both cases, Responsive Law filed briefs this year reminding the courts that the First Amendment protects the right of people to receive legal information as much as it protects the right of people to provide it. You can read more about the New York case here and the South Carolina case here.
In New York, a federal trial court granted an injunction allowing a nonprofit to provide limited legal advice to people facing debt collection lawsuits. That case is currently awaiting a decision from an appellate court. In South Carolina, the NAACP is asking courts to be permitted to give free legal advice to tenants facing eviction. That case has bounced between federal and state court on procedural grounds.
In both cases, Responsive Law filed briefs this year reminding the courts that the First Amendment protects the right of people to receive legal information as much as it protects the right of people to provide it. You can read more about the New York case here and the South Carolina case here.
#2: Growth of AI Could Expand Legal Access, Diminish Legal Cartel
The growth of artificial intelligence holds great promise for expanding legal access, despite a mix of fear and protectionism that threatens its growth. The debut of Chat GPT this year spurred a new wave of discussion about the proper role of technology in providing legal solutions.
Technology—like humans—can be flawed, and can be used irresponsibly. However, Responsive Law believes that this demonstrates the need for nuanced regulation of legal service providers rather than the current system where restrictions on the unauthorized practice of law prevent most consumers from getting legal help from any service provider—good or bad.
Responsive Law co-authored an op-ed making this point that was scheduled for publication by the ABA Center for Innovation before pressure on the Center from protectionists within the ABA led to it being withdrawn. You can read the op-ed here.
Technology—like humans—can be flawed, and can be used irresponsibly. However, Responsive Law believes that this demonstrates the need for nuanced regulation of legal service providers rather than the current system where restrictions on the unauthorized practice of law prevent most consumers from getting legal help from any service provider—good or bad.
Responsive Law co-authored an op-ed making this point that was scheduled for publication by the ABA Center for Innovation before pressure on the Center from protectionists within the ABA led to it being withdrawn. You can read the op-ed here.
#3: Texas Considers Allowing New Legal Service Providers
In December, the Texas Access to Justice Commission sent two measures to the Texas Supreme Court recommending that professionals other than lawyers be licensed to provide legal services. The Commission narrowly voted against a proposal to allow non-lawyer ownership of law firms, which would have further fostered access to innovative legal service providers.
Responsive Law testified in support of the proposal, but also urged the Commission to expand the scope of its intended audience from only “low-income” Texans to all Texans. We pointed out that when trying to afford legal services, we’re all “low-income.”
Responsive Law testified in support of the proposal, but also urged the Commission to expand the scope of its intended audience from only “low-income” Texans to all Texans. We pointed out that when trying to afford legal services, we’re all “low-income.”
#4: Utah Legal Consumers Continue to Benefit from Reform
Utah’s experiment with allowing new forms of legal service continues to expand access to legal help and to rebut claims that changing how legal services are regulated would harm consumers.
The “regulatory sandbox” allows legal service providers that agree to oversight by the Utah Innovation Office to make greater use of non-lawyers, both as service providers and as owners. To date, consumers have received over 66,000 legal services from companies in the sandbox with only nine consumer complaints.
Former Utah Supreme Court Justice Deno Himonas—now president of Responsive Law—was one of the driving forces behind implementing the regulatory sandbox.
.
The “regulatory sandbox” allows legal service providers that agree to oversight by the Utah Innovation Office to make greater use of non-lawyers, both as service providers and as owners. To date, consumers have received over 66,000 legal services from companies in the sandbox with only nine consumer complaints.
Former Utah Supreme Court Justice Deno Himonas—now president of Responsive Law—was one of the driving forces behind implementing the regulatory sandbox.
.
#5: ABA Purges Internal Support for Innovative Legal Services
The American Bar Association’s Center for Innovation was a rare pocket within the ABA that seemed to understand the reality that the average American has no access to legal help because of the profession's refusal to permit innovation. This year, apparently, the rest of the ABA must have realized this, though, as it purged the board of the Center and appointed new board members loyal to the ABA party line of steadfastly opposing any threat to the dominance of the lawyer cartel.
The media became aware of this story after the ABA pressured the Center to pull an op-ed co-written by Responsive Law suggesting the need to replace blanket restrictions on who may provide legal services with more nuanced, consumer-focused regulations.
You can read more about this story here.
The media became aware of this story after the ABA pressured the Center to pull an op-ed co-written by Responsive Law suggesting the need to replace blanket restrictions on who may provide legal services with more nuanced, consumer-focused regulations.
You can read more about this story here.
|
Donate Now
Support our cause and donate. Every penny counts. |
About Us
We represent the interests of individuals in the legal system. Staff & Board of Directors Internships |
Contact Us
E-mail: [email protected] Address: 1380 Monroe St NW, #210 Washington, DC 20010 Call: (202) 649-0399 |
Follow Us
|
Copyright © 2024 Responsive Law. All rights reserved.