The American Bar Association has issued its draft Report and Recommendations on the Future of Legal Education. You can download it here.
I agree with many of the recommendations of the report which urges law schools to experiment with different modes of legal education, recommends relaxing ABA accreditation rules which impede innovation, and modifies the traditional law curriculum to focus less on the teaching of doctrinal law and more on skills the prepare law students to actually practice law. Many of the recommendations,if adopted, would radically change the structure, focus, and culture of many law schools.
One of the recommendations of the Task Force is the idea of limited licensing of non-lawyers ("legal technicians") to deliver legal services to the public directly without the supervision of a lawyer:
"However, there is today, and there will increasingly be in the future, a need for: (a)persons who are qualified to provide limited law-related services without the oversight of a lawyer; (b) a system for licensing of individuals competent to provide such services; and (c) educational programs that train individuals to provide those limited services. The new system of training and licensing limited practice officers developed by Washington State and now being pursued by others is an example and a positive contribution."
Thus one of the final recommendations of the Task Force Report is:
"Authorize Persons Other than Lawyers with J.D.’s to Provide Limited Legal Services, Whether Through Licensure Systems or Other Mechanisms Assuring Proper Education, Training, and Oversight."
"Develop Educational Programs to Train Persons, other than Prospective Lawyers, to Provide Limited Legal Services. Such Programs May, but Need Not, Be Delivered through Law Schools that are Parts of Universities."
Unlike the other recommendations which deal with fixing legal education, these recommendations are focused on access to justice issues, which requires a different framework for analysis.
The recommendation to create a new class of limited licensed legal providers, so-called "Legal Technicians" - needs to be re-evaluated in the light of changing legal industry market dynamics and the accelerating impact of Internet technology on the delivery of legal services.
Just to note, for decades I have been a strong advocate for the idea that trained paralegals should be permitted to serve the public directly, without further licensing or regulation by any state body, other than graduation from an ABA-accredited law school and a few years of experience working in a law firm. I was formerly President and Dean of the Philadelphia Institute for Paralegal Training, the nation's first paralegal educational institution, and in that role saw how effective a trained paralegal can be in serving a law firm's clients.
More recently. the company I founded - DirectLaw - offers a virtual law firm platform for solos and small law firms. If there were a new class of limited license professionals in the market, I would not hesitate to modify our DirectLaw platform to serve limited licensed professionals, opening up a major new market for our virtual service. So personally I have much to gain by a new class of limited license professionals that would serve the public directly.
Only recently have I begun to reconsider the viability of a new class of legal paraprofessionals serving the public directly primarily because of changes in the market for personal legal services.
I have reservations about the proposal to license non-lawyers to provide limited legal services. My reservations are in the form of a challenge to the Task Force recommendations on limited-licensing, in the sense that the idea needs further thought and analysis before states rush to adopt these ideas. (despite the fact that Washington State already has a scheme in place, and California and New York are considering similar proposals).
Here are my reservations - comments welcome:
- The data that we have (see for example www.attorneyfee.com) suggests that the pricing of legal services by solo practitioners and very small law firm firms is going down -- not up. It is not a fact that the legal fees are out of reach of many consumers. There is an issue of connecting with consumers with lawyers-- but it is becoming less of a price issue and more of an "engagement" issue. There is no evidence to suggest that the fees that limited licensed practitioner would charge would be any less than the fees currently charged by solo practitioners, but their service, by definition, would be much more limited than the service offered by an attorney.
- Solo practitioners are already being displaced by technology which is forcing a reduction in legal fees. Limited license practitioners would be even more vulnerable to the impact of information technology on the more routine services that they would offer.
- The restrictive licensing scheme for lawyers, which is based on a "job-shop" model is likely to be replicated in the licensing scheme for "legal technicians." Licensing of legal service professionals based on the "job shop" model creates a high overhead enterprise that is vulnerable to new entrants into the market, e.g., LegalZoom, that are not subject to such restrictions. Lawyers already suffer from a competitive disadvantage against new market entrants. Legal technicians will face the same competitive disadvantages. I can't see how the practices of legal technicians, with certain exceptions, will be viable economically. (I have yet to see a business plan of what such a limited license practice would look like that would include the cost of malpractice insurance, office expenses, advertising and marketing expenses, etc.).
- Introduction of a new class of limited licensed professionals will continue to erode the economic model of solo and small law firm practice by sucking out from those practices the more routine legal services which are important to sustaining the economic viability of those law firms. It is naive to suggest that solo practitioners should concentrate on doing "more complex legal work" leaving the routine legal work to "limited license professionals.". If the ABA wants to deliver a death blow to solo practitioners this is a good way to do it. (See: Will California Threaten Lawyer Livelihoods with Legal Technicians?)
Creating a new regulatory scheme and educational system for limited licensed professionals is going to be high in cost. It is not likely that law schools and universities will be able to offer education a price point which is much lower than there existing price levels. The result will be that we will have a new class of students being trained in law that who will incur high student loans where the income generated from their practice will be insufficient to amortize the principal and interest, because of limited market prospects and price compression in the legal industry.
- Many of these new students who aspire to limited licensed professionals professionals are likely to be members of minority groups. Since there will be no hard data on the income prospects for this new class of professionals -- just the idea that that once graduate they will be able to compete with lawyers in a limited way - seducing students into a new field where there is no effective demand.
- I can just hear the pitch of commission-based admission's representatives at a variety of educational institutions who will jump in this market: "Become a licensed legal professional and you can provide legal services like a lawyer."
One result will be the imposition on a group of students excessive loan burdens which will be impossible for them to discharge. (This reminds me of the banking industry preying on minority neighborhoods with fraudulent loans). I would feel more comfortable with an of educational program to train legal technicians if the tuition was very low or free. Since there is no evidence that there is a viable career upon graduation, the risk should be assumed by society, and not the individual student. So if law schools and universities want to jump in this educational market the least they can do it make it tuition free or very low in cost for the first three years, until it is clear that there is a real career after graduation.
I could write more abut this subject, but this post is already long enough.