An overview and summary of US states currently implementing or studying possible regulatory changes in the market for legal services. Presentation created by Alice Mine and Brian Oten of the North Carolina State Bar.

1. REGULATORY REFORM IN THE LEGAL
PROFESSION – AN OVERVIEW
Alice Mine and Brian Oten
The North Carolina State Bar

2. INCREDIBLE RESOURCE:
ABA LEGAL
INNOVATION
REGULATORY SURVEY
• http://legalinnovationregulatorysurvey.info
• Sign up for email updates
• Emails are only sent when
necessary/action taken
• Another potential resource:
• University of Denver’s Institute for the
Advancement of the American Legal
System –Virtual Convening Series on
Regulatory Innovation
• Contact Brian if interested

3. STATES ENGAGED IN
REGULATORY REFORM
EFFORTS
(ACTION AND/OR STUDIES)

4. TIMELINE

5. GOVERNMENT ACTION ON REGULATORY REFORM
(*DOES NOT INCLUDE STUDIES BY VARIOUS GROUPS
OVER THE YEARS*)
• 2001/2004 – Australia allows incorporated law practices, multi-disciplinary practices, and publicly-listed practices
• 2007 – first law firm publicly lists
• 2007 – Legal Services Act in the UK
• June 2012 – Washington State Supreme Court authorizes Limited License Legal Technicians (LLLT); first LLLTs licensed
in 2015
• June 2017 – Legal Services Corporation report on access to justice
• “86% of the civil legal problems reported by low-income Americans in the past year received inadequate or no legal help.”
• July 2018 – at the request of the CA State Bar,William Henderson publishes Legal Market Landscape Report
• October 2018 – Utah authorizes Licensed Paralegal Practitioners (LPPs; similar to LLLTs); first LPPs licensed in 2019
• 2016-2019 – task forces with directives to propose regulatory reform start in Oregon, California, Utah,Arizona, New
Mexico, Minnesota, Indiana

6. EXAMINATION OF EFFORTS MADE
IN INDIVIDUAL JURISDICTIONS

7. AUSTRALIA

8. AUSTRALIA (NEW SOUTH WALES)
• 2001 – Corporations Act and 2004 – Legal Profession Act authorize law firms to incorporate, publicly list, and
form as/convert to multi-disciplinary practices
• 2007 – first publicly listed law firm in the world (Slater and Gordon)
• 2009 – revisit regulatory reform; revised Legal Profession Act adopted in 2015 (PMBR elements to improve
ethics infrastructure for firms)
• Is it working? Mixed reaction
• New structures for law firms have increased, but reforms have not improved access to justice; new conflicts
concerns
• “The adoption of non-lawyer ownership of legal services may, in some instances, bring access and other benefits.
However, the evidence so far does not indicate that these access gains will be as significant for poor and
moderate-income populations as some proponents suggest, and if non-lawyer ownership is seen as a substitute
for other access strategies, like legal aid, such a deregulatory reform strategy could even have a detrimental
impact. At the same time, the evidence also does not indicate that the professionalism concerns raised by non-
lawyer ownership justify a blanket ban.”
When Lawyers Don't Get All the Profits: Non-Lawyer Ownership,Access, and Professionalism, 29 Geo. J. Legal Ethics 1, 61-62 (2012)

9. UNITED KINGDOM

10. UNITED KINGDOM
• 2007 – Legal Services Act
• Eliminated self-regulation; legal profession now
regulated by entity composed of both lawyers
and non-lawyers, answerable to Parliament
(Legal Services Board)
• Permits alternative business structures with
nonlawyers in professional, management, or
ownership roles.

11. IS IT WORKING IN THE UK?
• Yes and no; access to justice still a concern.
• New business models have been developed (800+ Alternative Business Structures).
• Prices for legal services have not decreased despite innovation.
• “But the biggest criticism of the Legal Services Act saga is that it has done adjacent to nothing for the
ill-served retail consumers whom it was supposed to aid. As the Competition and Markets Authority
concluded last December after a year-long review, occasional users of legal services struggle to find a
decent product at a reasonable price.”
Comment: The Legal Services Act ten years on – still waiting for the Big Bang (November 2017), https://www.legalbusiness.co.uk/blogs/comment-the-legal-services-act-ten-years-on-still-waiting-for-the-big-bang/
• CMA recommended increased transparency for legal services, primarily on prices for legal services; new rules
took effect in 2018 to require lawyers/law firms to display prices for services.

12. WASHINGTON STATE

13. WASHINGTON
• June 2012 –Washington State
Supreme Court adopts rule
permitting Limited License Legal
Technicians (LLLT)
• 2014 – LLLT classes start
• 2015 – first LLLTs are licensed

15. May 24, 2020

16. May 24, 2020

17. WASHINGTON LLLTS
• Is it working?
• Mixed reactions; still early to determine success/impact
• Pros: Potential if expanded to additional practice areas, abilities/permissions
increased
• Cons: small numbers of LLLTs; employment trends; high cost for regulatory
program; questionable impact on access to justice

18. UTAH

19. UTAH
• 2015 – task force created to study access to justice; recommended creation of limited license
paraprofessionals
• October 2018 – Utah Supreme Court authorizes creation of Licensed Paralegal Practitioners (LPPs)
• Required courses designed by Court/Bar; offered at UtahValley University in 2019
• First LPPs licensed in October 2019 (4)
• Late 2018 – Utah Supreme Court calls for Court and Bar leadership to address access to justice
issue through regulatory reform
• March 2019 – task force announced
• August 2019 – task force report and recommendations published

20. UTAH TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATIONS
• Amend RPCs on advertising
• Allow referral fees
• Allow nonlawyer ownership/eliminate Rule 5.4
• Create a “regulatory sandbox” that permits alternative business structures to exist
on the condition that data be provided to new regulatory body to gauge
impact/effectiveness
• Focus on objectives-based, risk-based regulation

23. UTAH – CURRENT EFFORTS
• Proposal to eliminate Rule 5.4 and replace with new Rules 5.4A and 5.4B
• 5.4A – notes the importance of lawyer independence, but otherwise permits lawyers to share fees
with nonlawyers upon notice given to client
• 5.4B – concerns regulatory sandbox efforts
• Proposal re: advertising rules
• Eliminate all advertising rules except:
• Communications re: legal services cannot be false
• Communications re: legal services cannot involve coercion, harassment, or duress
• *Prohibition on in-person solicitation will be eliminated
• Proposals are currently published for comment

24. ARIZONA

25. ARIZONA
• November 2018 –Task Force on Delivery of Legal
Services established
• January through September 2019 – task force meetings
• October 2019 – task force issues report and
recommendations
• January 2020 – task force petitions Supreme Court to
amend various rules based upon report
• Comment period currently open
• April 2020 – Supreme Court authorizes law students and
recent graduates to practice law under certain conditions

26. ARIZONA – TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATIONS
• Remove barriers to non-lawyer ownership by eliminating 5.4 and 5.7 (law-related services)
• Amend advertising rules to match ABA Model Rules
• Promote education on unbundled legal services
• Amend and clarify student/recent graduate practice rules; do not tie to law school clinic
• Amend UPL rules to clarify what actions are permitted and prohibited
• Develop a program to license nonlawyer “limited license legal practitioners”
• Initiate the “Licensed Legal Advocate Pilot Program” (train lay persons to provide legal advice to domestic violence
survivors)
• Initiate the “DomesticViolence Legal Assistance Project Document Preparer Program” (lay persons can assist in
preparing documents)
• Improve access to and quality of legal document preparers (business or entity certified to prepare legal documents for
self-representation without the supervision of an attorney)
• Encourage local courts to create nonlawyer positions in court system that provide direct information to self-represented
litigants re: court processes.

27. CALIFORNIA

28. CALIFORNIA
• 2018 – task force formed to study online legal
services delivery models and determine if
regulatory changes are needed to better
support and/or regulate the expansion of
technology in legal services.
• Three subcommittees associated with the task
force:
• UPL/Artificial Intelligence subcommittee
• Rules and Ethics Opinions subcommittee
• Alternative Business
Structure/Multidisciplinary Practice
subcommittee
• July 2019 – task force publishes report and
recommendations
• May 2020 – regulatory sandbox authorized

29. CALIFORNIA –
TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATIONS
• Amend/create UPL exceptions to permit technology-driven legal services delivery systems; permit
nonlawyers to provide legal advice in specified areas
• Amend Rule 1.1 comments to include reference to technology
• Amend Rule 5.4 to permit nonlawyers to have financial interest in litigation; permit lawyers to share
fees with nonlawyers
• Adopt MR 5.7 to foster investment in technology-driven delivery systems for legal services with
nonlawyers
• Amend Advertising RPCs

30. NEW MEXICO

31. NEW MEXICO
• 2015 – Access to Justice Commission recommends creation of LLLTs in New
Mexico
• 2018 – Innovation Team workgroup begins study to identify potential projects/ideas
to address access to justice gap in New Mexico
• May 2019 – Supreme Court requests report from workgroup
• December 2019 – workgroup issues report and recommendations:
• Recruit qualified attorneys to New Mexico, targeting rural areas
• Implement Court Navigators Program (no legal advice; assist in completing forms, etc.)
• Rural Law Opportunity Program (stipend as incentive for lawyers to move to rural areas)
• Continue studying LLLT

32. MINNESOTA

33. MINNESOTA
• 2017 – Alternative Legal Models Task Force recommends
development of a program for affordable legal services that does
not rely entirely on lawyers
• March 2019 – Supreme Court creates committee to study idea
and implementation of a Legal Paraprofessional Pilot Project
• March 2020 – committee report with recommendation to
create the LPPP
• License nonlawyers for representation in housing and family
law disputes
• Under the supervision of an attorney
• Project initial duration: 18 months

34. OREGON

35. OREGON
• April 2016 – Oregon State Bar creates a “Futures Task Force” consisting of two committees:
• Legal Innovations Committee – focused on tools and models for modern legal practice.
• Regulatory Committee – how best to regulate the profession and protect the public considering changing
legal market.
• June 2017 – Task Force issues report and recommendations on the future of legal services in
Oregon.
• September 2019 – State Bar approves recommendations to create a) licensed paraprofessionals
and b) a pathway to lawyer licensure without attending law school.
• Proposals still need to be approved by Supreme Court.

36. REGULATORY COMMITTEE
• Create licensed paraprofessionals (landlord/tenant and
family law)
• Revise RPC to remove barrier to innovation
• Amend advertising rules to allow in-person/real-time
solicitation
• Allow fee sharing with referral services
• Allow fee sharing with paraprofessionals
• Clarify that providing access to web-based, intelligent software
to assist in creating documents is not UPL
• Improve resources for self-navigators
• Embrace data-driven decisions
• Expand lawyer referral service
• Enhance practice management resources
• Reduce barriers to accessibility
• Bar-sponsored incubator program (assist new
lawyers in establishing practice to serve low-
and moderate-income populations)
INNOVATIONS COMMITTEE
OREGON

37. ADDITIONAL JURISDICTIONS WITH
NEW/ONGOING STUDIES
• Colorado
• Connecticut
• District of Columbia
• Florida
• Illinois
• Indiana
• North Carolina

38. SUMMARY OF REGULATORY
REFORM IDEAS

39. MOST FREQUENT REGULATORY REFORM
IDEAS AMONGST THE STATES
• Paraprofessionals/LLLTs
• Nonlawyer ownership/partnership
• Fee sharing
• Amendments to Advertising Rules
• Permitting referral fees (for-profit?)
• Referral services
• Prohibition on in-person solicitation
• UPL liberalization
• Document preparers, etc.
• Legal Regulatory Sandbox
• Alternative Admission to the Bar
• Without law school but with bar exam
• Based only on law school/no bar exam
• Court navigators
*Goals: Improve Access to Justice;
Promote Innovation in Delivery of Legal Services throughTechnology*

40. WHAT’S HAPPENING IN NORTH
CAROLINA

41. ONGOING NORTH
CAROLINA EFFORTS
• Administrative Office of the Courts – e-courts project
(case management integration; e-filing; e-forms)
• EAJC’s Legal Needs Assessment Steering Committee –
chaired by Justice Earls
• Identify legal needs of low-income communities and document
current resources and services available to meet those needs.
• Understand specifics regarding the gaps in availability of
services and what resources are needed to address unmet
legal needs.
• Provide data and analysis that will be useful to legal aid
providers and stakeholder organizations seeking to expand
access to civil legal aid.
• Gain a more detailed understanding of how race, gender, age,
disability and other factors affect the depth and type of civil
legal problems people experience.
• Identify by geographic, racial, gender and other demographics
who gets help and who does not.

42. DISCUSSION

43. METHODOLOGY AND PROGRESSION
THROUGH STUDY
• Issue-focused vs. jurisdiction-focused?
• Other considerations?
• Frequency of meetings?
• Additional perspectives for committee?
• Eventual product from committee?

44. NEXT STEPS
• Next meeting – date and topic?
• Brian will survey re: availability

45. INCREDIBLE RESOURCE:
ABA LEGAL
INNOVATION
REGULATORY SURVEY
• http://legalinnovationregulatorysurvey.info
• Sign up for email updates
• Emails are only sent when
necessary/action taken
• Another potential resource:
• University of Denver’s Institute for the
Advancement of the American Legal
System –Virtual Convening Series on
Regulatory Innovation
• Contact Brian if interested

46. REGULATORY REFORM IN THE LEGAL
PROFESSION – AN OVERVIEW
Alice Mine and Brian Oten
The North Carolina State Bar