Menu
Top Five Stories of 2020
We've compiled our top five stories of 2020. Starting December 16, we'll be updating this page every weekday until we reach #1. Subscribe to our e-newsletter to receive these updates in your mailbox.
#1: Arizona To Allow Paraprofessional Service, Non-Lawyer Ownership
In August, the Arizona Supreme Court approved a sweeping reform of anachronistic rules that have hampered access to legal help.
One change was to begin licensure of “Legal Paraprofessionals,” who will be allowed to provide services directly to consumers, without working under a lawyer. The other is to eliminate the rule restricting ownership of law firms to lawyers. Businesses with non-lawyer ownership will be required to be licensed as “Alternative Business Providers.”
Responsive Law’s comments to the court in support of the proposal stood out as a rare consumer voice among dozens of often self-interested comments from lawyers and bar associations.
One change was to begin licensure of “Legal Paraprofessionals,” who will be allowed to provide services directly to consumers, without working under a lawyer. The other is to eliminate the rule restricting ownership of law firms to lawyers. Businesses with non-lawyer ownership will be required to be licensed as “Alternative Business Providers.”
Responsive Law’s comments to the court in support of the proposal stood out as a rare consumer voice among dozens of often self-interested comments from lawyers and bar associations.
#2: Utah Launches Experiment to Allow Innovative Legal Business Models
In August, the Utah Supreme Court approved the nation’s first regulatory sandbox for legal service providers. Firms operating in the sandbox would not be subject to restrictions on non-lawyer ownership. For law businesses that choose to include non-lawyer ownership, there would be a new regulatory body using outcomes- and risk-based approaches to balance increased access to justice with actual consumer harm.
Responsive Law’s comments to the Utah Supreme Court in support of the proposal noted that the sandbox would allow companies to access the capital needed to provide scalable, affordable services. We also emphasized that this sandbox would provide an extra set of protections for consumers, as companies in the sandbox—unlike traditional law firms—would be subject to regulation as a business, and not only the regulation of individual lawyers.
Responsive Law’s comments to the Utah Supreme Court in support of the proposal noted that the sandbox would allow companies to access the capital needed to provide scalable, affordable services. We also emphasized that this sandbox would provide an extra set of protections for consumers, as companies in the sandbox—unlike traditional law firms—would be subject to regulation as a business, and not only the regulation of individual lawyers.
#3: California Considers Regulatory Sandbox, Alternative Business Structures
In May, the State Bar of California, in a 9-2 vote, established a Closing the Justice Gap Working Group. The working group will study whether to change regulations on non-lawyer ownership of law firms and whether to establish a regulatory sandbox, in which new, consumer-friendly legal service delivery models could be monitored to test whether loosening restrictions could increase access while still protecting consumers.
Responsive Law testified to the State Bar on multiple occasions to emphasize that trial lawyer opponents were misrepresenting themselves as representing the interests of consumers, and to insist that the working group have a non-lawyer majority.
The working group is expected to start meeting early next year and to issue final recommendations by September 2022.
Responsive Law testified to the State Bar on multiple occasions to emphasize that trial lawyer opponents were misrepresenting themselves as representing the interests of consumers, and to insist that the working group have a non-lawyer majority.
The working group is expected to start meeting early next year and to issue final recommendations by September 2022.
#4: ABA Passes Resolution Encouraging Regulatory Innovation
In February, the American Bar Association passed Resolution 115, which “encourages U.S. jurisdictions to consider regulatory innovations that have the potential to improve the accessibility, affordability, and quality of civil legal services.”
Merely encouraging regulators to consider innovation isn’t a big step. It’s just asking regulators to do their job. And the resolution includes a caveat that it shouldn’t be construed as encouraging changes to ABA Model Rule 5.4, which includes prohibitions on unauthorized practice of law and ownership of firms by non-lawyers.
What’s noteworthy about this resolution is that the ABA actually decided to stick its toe in the waters of reform. The ABA has a reputation for opposing change, so any support for change, even at a glacial pace, is an improvement over its usual position of steadfastly supporting the status quo.
You can read our testimony to the ABA House of Delegates here.
Merely encouraging regulators to consider innovation isn’t a big step. It’s just asking regulators to do their job. And the resolution includes a caveat that it shouldn’t be construed as encouraging changes to ABA Model Rule 5.4, which includes prohibitions on unauthorized practice of law and ownership of firms by non-lawyers.
What’s noteworthy about this resolution is that the ABA actually decided to stick its toe in the waters of reform. The ABA has a reputation for opposing change, so any support for change, even at a glacial pace, is an improvement over its usual position of steadfastly supporting the status quo.
You can read our testimony to the ABA House of Delegates here.
#5: Washington Ends Limited License Program
In a surprise move this June, the Washington Supreme Court ended its Limited License Legal Technician (LLLT) program through an order issued late on a Friday afternoon, without notice or an opportunity for public comment.
The program had been intended to offer consumers a lower-cost alternative to lawyers by licensing trained paralegals to perform tasks that did not require a lawyer’s expertise. However, the education and licensing requirements were so high that the program never attracted many licensees. Furthermore, the state’s bar dragged its feet in implementing the court’s directions for the program on multiple occasions throughout its history.
In her dissent to the court’s decision, former Chief Justice Barbara Madsen wrote, “The elimination of the LLLT license, which was created to address access to justice across income and race, is a step backward in this critical work. It is not the time for closing the doors to justice but, instead, for opening them wider.”
The program had been intended to offer consumers a lower-cost alternative to lawyers by licensing trained paralegals to perform tasks that did not require a lawyer’s expertise. However, the education and licensing requirements were so high that the program never attracted many licensees. Furthermore, the state’s bar dragged its feet in implementing the court’s directions for the program on multiple occasions throughout its history.
In her dissent to the court’s decision, former Chief Justice Barbara Madsen wrote, “The elimination of the LLLT license, which was created to address access to justice across income and race, is a step backward in this critical work. It is not the time for closing the doors to justice but, instead, for opening them wider.”
|
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.