Support Us

Top Five Stories of 2019

We've compiled our top five stories of 2019. Starting December 16, we'll be updating this page daily until we reach #1.  Subscribe to our e-newsletter to receive these updates in your mailbox.

#1: Arizona and Utah Begin Path to Fostering Affordable Mass-Market Legal Services

Arizona and Utah are advancing rule changes that could allow consumers to find legal help as easily and affordably as they can find any other service in our modern economy. Both states are considering eliminating restrictions on outside investment in law practices, potentially opening the way for mass-market consumer law firms.

The Utah Supreme Court has adopted recommendations that include the creation of a “regulatory sandbox” where companies could develop new business models for legal services delivery under the supervision of an independent regulator. In Arizona, a Supreme Court task force has recommended the elimination of several rules, including the prohibition on lawyers receiving outside investment in their businesses.

The prohibition on outside investment has hampered the growth of new legal service models by forcing law firms that work on everyday consumer and small business issues to remain small and unable to take advantage of economies of scale that could allow them to provide services more efficiently and affordably.

#2: ABA Responds to Pressure, Preserves Access to Online Legal Doc Prep

Responsive Law’s vigilance prevented the American Bar Association from passing a resolution that would have effectively banned online legal document software. The New York State Bar Association tried twice to get this proposal through the ABA, claiming it would protect consumers, but a coalition of Responsive Law and other organizations exposed it as an attempt by lawyers to limit competition from businesses that serve the public more affordably and effectively.

Responsive Law Executive Director Tom Gordon served on an ABA working group to revise the proposal and was able to get some of the more egregious provisions removed from the proposal, while making sure that true consumer protections were maintained or strengthened. The revised proposal was approved by the ABA in August.

#3: Will CA Task Force Recommendations Go Far Enough To Help Legal Consumers?

In July, the California Access Through Innovation in Legal Services Task Force released a set of proposed changes to the regulation of legal services, including loosening both restrictions on who may provide legal services and prohibitions on fee sharing between lawyers and non-lawyers.

Responsive Law testified extensively to the ATILS Task Force. We applauded the idea of allowing consumers to hire competent professionals other than lawyers to help them with legal matters. We also urged the task force to choose the broader of two options it is considering to allow non-lawyer ownership of law firms. Only this broader option would allow the creation of mass-market consumer legal services, which are a necessary step toward widely affordable legal help.

The Task Force is scheduled to release its final recommendations in February 2020.

#4: Ticket-Fighting App Wins Round One in Florida; Supreme Court is Next

TIKD, an application that enables users to be paired with an attorney based on an uploaded traffic ticket they wish to contest, won the first round in its battle against lawyers who want to put it out of business. In January, a referee appointed by the Florida Supreme Court rejected claims by the Florida Bar and law firm The Ticket Clinic that TIKD was engaging in unauthorized practice of law.

The referee’s report is being reviewed by the Florida Supreme Court. Responsive Law has filed an amicus brief in the case, which will be argued on March 4.

#5: RI Supreme​ Court Deciding Whether Lawyers Are Required for Real Estate Closings

On December 5, the Rhode Island Supreme Court heard over three hours of oral argument over whether lawyers should be required for real estate closings.

 Responsive Law filed a brief in the case, in which we pointed out that real estate agents perform closing functions competently, and that requiring lawyers does little to protect the public but does significantly increase closing costs.

Our brief came only after some controversy, in which the court rejected our request to file less formal testimony in lieu of a brief (as numerous other courts have permitted), requiring us to find outside counsel to prepare a formal brief.

The court’s decision is expected by the end of June.