by Michaela Reger

Responsive Law has submitted comments to the Utah Supreme Court in support of its proposed reforms to regulation of legal services in the state. 
  
The Court’s proposal (known as the “Sandbox”) would eliminate restrictions on non-lawyer ownership of law firms. For law businesses that choose to include nonlawyer ownership, there would be a new regulatory body using outcomes- and risk-based approaches to balance increased access to justice with actual consumer harm. ​

by Jim DiFrancesco

Responsive Law recently submitted comments to the Illinois Attorney Registration and Discipline Committee (ARDC) regarding its study of how to regulate client-lawyer matching services. Client-lawyer matching services allow consumers to find lawyers that match the expertise needed for their case quickly and online, across multiple firms. The commentary focused on how both lawyers and consumers benefit from these services, and how regulation can be implemented to protect the interests of consumers while also promoting innovation and growth.

Written by Ridhi Shetty

For-profit legal referral will be prohibited by a new proposed ethics opinion by the State Bar of Michigan Professional Ethics Committee that states that for-profit legal referral services violate fee-sharing prohibitions under the Michigan Rules of Professional Conduct. Responsive Law has issued testimony opposing the proposed ethics opinion, urging the Committee to allow attorney participation in for-profit legal referral services to improve public access to justice.

​Written by Tom Gordon

​The New Jersey Supreme Court has declined to review a bar ethics opinion prohibiting lawyers from participating in fixed fee legal services platforms such as Avvo Advisor. The court’s inaction will most immediately impact consumers of legal services in New Jersey, but ultimately could expose members of the New Jersey bar ethics committees to antitrust liability.
​​

Written by Carolyn Mobley

Responsive Law has submitted comments opposing the American Bar Association’s amendments to rules on lawyer advertising because the amendments do not do enough to improve and streamline those rules.