Menu
Top Five Stories of 2014
We've compiled our top five stories of 2014. Subscribe to our e-newsletter to receive these updates in your mailbox.
#1: Responsive Law Files Supreme Court Brief Opposing Lawyer Self-Regulation
In August, Responsive Law, along with a coalition of law professors and alternative legal service providers, filed a 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.
While dentistry is not part of Responsive Law's mission, this case has important implications for the regulation of the legal profession and whether anyone besides lawyers will be allowed to provide legal services. The position of dental examiners in this case is directly analogous to that of lawyers who regulate the legal profession through state bar associations. In both cases, a group of professionals that has a financial self-interest in excluding outsiders has been given the power to regulate the profession. Unsurprisingly, in the case of both dentists and lawyers, the professionals have used this power to exclude outsiders. In both cases, it is the public who suffers, by being forced to pay cartel prices for services.
The self-regulatory nature of lawyer regulation is at the root of our access to justice crisis. If lawyers did not have the ability to use government power to protect themselves from competition, we'd see more innovation and lower prices in the legal services market, both from the innovative non-lawyer services that would be permitted to flourish, and from the innovation and lower prices that lawyers would be forced to provide to remain competitive in an open market.
The Supreme Court heard arguments on the case on October 14. A decision is expected by June.
While dentistry is not part of Responsive Law's mission, this case has important implications for the regulation of the legal profession and whether anyone besides lawyers will be allowed to provide legal services. The position of dental examiners in this case is directly analogous to that of lawyers who regulate the legal profession through state bar associations. In both cases, a group of professionals that has a financial self-interest in excluding outsiders has been given the power to regulate the profession. Unsurprisingly, in the case of both dentists and lawyers, the professionals have used this power to exclude outsiders. In both cases, it is the public who suffers, by being forced to pay cartel prices for services.
The self-regulatory nature of lawyer regulation is at the root of our access to justice crisis. If lawyers did not have the ability to use government power to protect themselves from competition, we'd see more innovation and lower prices in the legal services market, both from the innovative non-lawyer services that would be permitted to flourish, and from the innovation and lower prices that lawyers would be forced to provide to remain competitive in an open market.
The Supreme Court heard arguments on the case on October 14. A decision is expected by June.
#2: State Bars and ABA See Expanded Role for Non-Lawyers
Responsive Law has always advocated a larger role for non-lawyers in providing legal services. This year, even more policymakers agreed with us that the American public will not have complete access to justice as long as lawyers continue to be the only source of legal help.
In June, a Connecticut Bar Association task force recommended that state regulators allow persons other than licensed lawyers to practice law under certain guidelines. Dubbing such practitioners, “super paralegals,” the task force believed (as does Responsive Law) that they could help with the types of legal problems where people most often represent themselves because they can’t afford a lawyer. These areas include simple divorces, small claims, and landlord-tenant disputes.
The Connecticut task force follows similar recommendations from an American Bar Association task force. Also, the state of Washington is about to start licensing non-lawyers to perform this type of work, and the State Bar of California is considering a similar licensing plan. Responsive Law has testified to these policymakers, and will continue to fight to expand the options available to those needing legal help.
In June, a Connecticut Bar Association task force recommended that state regulators allow persons other than licensed lawyers to practice law under certain guidelines. Dubbing such practitioners, “super paralegals,” the task force believed (as does Responsive Law) that they could help with the types of legal problems where people most often represent themselves because they can’t afford a lawyer. These areas include simple divorces, small claims, and landlord-tenant disputes.
The Connecticut task force follows similar recommendations from an American Bar Association task force. Also, the state of Washington is about to start licensing non-lawyers to perform this type of work, and the State Bar of California is considering a similar licensing plan. Responsive Law has testified to these policymakers, and will continue to fight to expand the options available to those needing legal help.
#3: Responsive Law Slays Zombie Unauthorized Practice Bill
Last year the California legislature passed a bill that would have greatly increased the autonomy and power of the State Bar in initiating unauthorized practice of law (UPL) proceedings against non-lawyers helping people with legal matters. It would have fed the bar attorneys' fees and fines, and was a blatant attempt to smother the nascent non-lawyer legal services industry with the threat of a barrage of UPL suits.
Responsive Law led the opposition to this bill, noting that existing consumer protection mechanisms in California are adequate to address the ills caused by UPL and that the bill's supporters were cynically waving the flag of consumer interest to support a bar-centric power and cash grab. Although the bill passed the legislature, Governor Jerry Brown vetoed it, mirroring Responsive Law's objections in his veto message.
This year, the bill's supporters reintroduced it, and repeatedly misrepresented its contents and implications, falsely claiming that the objections shared by Responsive Law and the governor had been addressed. Responsive Law noticed these falsehoods and quickly notified Governor Brown. Shortly after this, the bill was withdrawn, hopefully for good this time.
Responsive Law led the opposition to this bill, noting that existing consumer protection mechanisms in California are adequate to address the ills caused by UPL and that the bill's supporters were cynically waving the flag of consumer interest to support a bar-centric power and cash grab. Although the bill passed the legislature, Governor Jerry Brown vetoed it, mirroring Responsive Law's objections in his veto message.
This year, the bill's supporters reintroduced it, and repeatedly misrepresented its contents and implications, falsely claiming that the objections shared by Responsive Law and the governor had been addressed. Responsive Law noticed these falsehoods and quickly notified Governor Brown. Shortly after this, the bill was withdrawn, hopefully for good this time.
#4: ABA Commission To Study Future of Legal Services
The American Bar Association has convened a Commission on the Future of Legal Services to study ways in which innovation and new regulatory models can help meet the public’s needs for legal assistance.
Responsive Law has submitted the first in what it expects will be a series of comments to this commission. We told the commission that one of the main things the legal profession needs to do is to roll back many of the regulations that it has imposed to maintain the lawyer cartel over legal services. Restrictions on who may provide legal services are one of the largest obstacles to wider access to legal help. A lack of innovation in the business model of law is another obstacle. The latter is caused by regulations banning outside investment in law firms, which could allow them to serve everyday legal needs the way that H&R Block serves everyday tax filing needs.
Responsive Law will continue its advocacy before the commission in response to any reform proposals it makes. As has been the case with our testimony to other ABA groups, we expect to be the only consumer voice the commission hears.
Responsive Law has submitted the first in what it expects will be a series of comments to this commission. We told the commission that one of the main things the legal profession needs to do is to roll back many of the regulations that it has imposed to maintain the lawyer cartel over legal services. Restrictions on who may provide legal services are one of the largest obstacles to wider access to legal help. A lack of innovation in the business model of law is another obstacle. The latter is caused by regulations banning outside investment in law firms, which could allow them to serve everyday legal needs the way that H&R Block serves everyday tax filing needs.
Responsive Law will continue its advocacy before the commission in response to any reform proposals it makes. As has been the case with our testimony to other ABA groups, we expect to be the only consumer voice the commission hears.
#5: US Continues to Lag in World Justice Rankings
The World Justice Project recently published its fourth annual Rule of Law Index, a comprehensive study of the rule of law in 99 countries. The verdict: America's failure to provide access to justice seriously harms the rule of law here.
The U.S. spectacularly underperforms in providing affordable and accessible civil justice. In that sub-category, we were ranked 65th out of 99 globally. For reference, that puts us in a four-way tie with Mongolia, Kyrgyzstan, and Uganda. Among our regional group (covering North America and the Eurozone), the US was ranked last. That's behind Bulgaria, for those of you keeping score. And among other high-income countries, we're 29th out of 30, ahead of only the United Arab Emirates. When faced with a civil dispute, any non-wealthy American might as well live in Kyrgyzstan!
The high cost (or plain unavailability) of civil legal assistance in the U.S. has created a crisis in access to justice whose depth would surprise most Americans. Our justice system is failing because it is stuck in the last century. Other countries have embraced innovations that allow both lawyers and non-lawyers to provide services in a user-friendly manner. Responsive Law continues to fight for these innovations here at home.
The U.S. spectacularly underperforms in providing affordable and accessible civil justice. In that sub-category, we were ranked 65th out of 99 globally. For reference, that puts us in a four-way tie with Mongolia, Kyrgyzstan, and Uganda. Among our regional group (covering North America and the Eurozone), the US was ranked last. That's behind Bulgaria, for those of you keeping score. And among other high-income countries, we're 29th out of 30, ahead of only the United Arab Emirates. When faced with a civil dispute, any non-wealthy American might as well live in Kyrgyzstan!
The high cost (or plain unavailability) of civil legal assistance in the U.S. has created a crisis in access to justice whose depth would surprise most Americans. Our justice system is failing because it is stuck in the last century. Other countries have embraced innovations that allow both lawyers and non-lawyers to provide services in a user-friendly manner. Responsive Law continues to fight for these innovations here at home.
|
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.