by Ridhi Shetty
After the State of Washington took several years to study its justice gap with little concrete action to bridge this gap, the Washington State Bar Association (WSBA) Board of Governors continues to drag out the process ordered by the Washington Supreme Court in January 2018 to bring limited license legal technicians (LLLTs), limited practice officers (LPOs), and public members onto the Board.
by Tom Gordon
Consumers of legal services seeking a quick way to find lawyers while guarding against the prospect of runaway hourly billing will now have to look a little harder. Avvo has stopped offering its popular Avvo Legal Services. The service is no longer offered on its website, and the general counsel for Internet Brands, which recently acquired Avvo, has indicated that the service will be discontinued by the end of this month.
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 James Duffy
The State Bar of California has established the Governance in the Public Interest Task Force to help improve the public protection function of the State Bar. California law holds the protection of the public as the State Bar’s highest priority. Responsive Law believes that unchecked self-governance by lawyers is not in the interest of the public, and issued comments offering guidelines that would better protect the public.
Written by Briane Cormish
As we reported previously, Responsive Law joined in an amicus brief in the U.S. Supreme Court case of North Carolina Board of Dental Examiners v. Federal Trade Commission (hereinafter referred to as the Dental Examiners case). In the amicus brief, we brought to the Supreme Court’s attention the access to justice gap in America that is caused by over-regulation of the legal market and high barriers to entry that benefit lawyers at the expense of the public interest. We encouraged the Court to rule in favor of the FTC to ensure that regulations protect consumers, not market participants. The decision, handed down on Feb 25th, 2015, did just that.