​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 Lynn Bechtol

In a disappointing move for proponents of public oversight of the bar, on November 17 the California Supreme Court authorized its State Bar Association to collect interim dues from its members for 2017. Responsive Law testified on this issue to the California Supreme Court, urging it to tie any such authorization to a requirement that the State Bar pursue reform of its governance structures.
​
The California Supreme Court itself had earlier mandated that the State Bar of California act to segregate its attorney discipline and trade organization functions, reacting to a recent US Supreme Court case holding that professional organizations may not use their regulatory functions to stifle marketplace competition. Despite this mandate, the Special Regulatory Assessment requested by the Bar made no effort to address shortcomings in the Bar's current governance system.

"The California Supreme Court's decision to authorize the assessment even in the absence of reform is an unfortunate defeat for consumers of legal services, who need reform to make the judicial system more responsive and accountable to the interests of the public," stated Responsive Law Executive Director Tom Gordon. "In California and across the nation, state bars need to adapt their practices both to serve the public and to conform with the US Supreme Court's standards for professional regulatory organizations."

You can read more about the Supreme Court order here, and you can find Responsive Law's testimony on this matter here.

Lynn Bechtol is a Responsive Law Legal Fellow.
​
Be the first to comment! 

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.

Written by Tom Gordon
​
Responsive Law, along with a coalition of law professors and alternative legal service providers has filed an amicus curiae brief in the U.S. Supreme Court case of North Carolina State Board of Dental Examiners v. FTC. The case concerns whether dentists on the state licensing board are exempt from antitrust law for their behavior in banning non-dentists from providing teeth-whitening services.

Written by Tom Gordon

On June 15, 2012 the Washington Supreme Court adopted a groundbreaking rule which will allow consumers to use non-lawyers with certain training and education to provide technical help on simple legal matters. This Limited Practice Rule for Limited License Legal Technicians (“LLLT”) will be effective September 1, 2012 and is a monumental step toward increasing access to justice for Washingtonians.  The purpose of the rule is to authorize certain persons to render limited legal assistance or advice in approved areas of law.