So, the bottom line appears to me to be this: We’re going to create an environment in which a legal services company can use a business model to provide the illusion of competent legal services and charge much less than lawyers can economically afford to charge, thinking that this is going to help people who would not hire a lawyer, but that it is not going to take food off of lawyer’s plates because people who would have hired a lawyer will still choose to pay the lawyer’s higher prices. What could possibly go wrong? Wouldn’t it make more sense to address whatever makes it economically impossible for lawyers to charge affordable prices? Besides law school prices/student loans, one of those things is the systemic inefficiency in court procedure. Our judicial branches don’t seem to me to have the wherewithal to reform patchwork rules and procedures that grew up in response to statutes constitutional cases, and other lawsuits. What is called ‘reengineering’ or total quality management or its successors in the business world hasn’t scratched the surface in judicial procedures. I can’t help thinking those kinds of reforms would reduce lawyer’s costs and make it economically possible for me to offer lower prices.
As if it isn’t hard enough for people who went to law school to find a job - now we’ll make it so that people who didn’t go to law school can compete with them.
There’s a special place for these law school professors. Their bloated salaries indentured an entire generation of lawyers, causing millions of people to go without legal services. Then they have the audacity to take what little market remains away from the serfs they created. Sleep well, Professor Hadfield.
I was a paralegal for more than eleven years. Logically, then, I should have an interest in any proposition that would permit nonlawyers to “practice” law. It would seem that such proposition would mean work for me. However, I have no such interest. I think any proposition that allows nonlawyers to “practice” law would not properly serve the public. Even with any relaxation of UPL laws I still see it as minefield I would prefer not to tread.
Moreover, sorry, but I really cannot wrap my arms around the notion that real, qualified attorney help is so unavailable. In recent years law schools have turned out scores of new attorneys. So many of these new attorneys cannot find attorney jobs. Many of these attorneys are so hungry for work and money, not to mention hungry in their stomachs, that they compete with paralegals for their jobs. So, then, why can these attorneys not take on all those folks who are starving for legal help? These attorneys certainly will not charge the same fees that a twenty-year Big Law partner will charge. Some of them might take cases pro bono at least for a time to collect experience so they are better positioned to be hired into an attorney job.
Also it’s vital to note that even though these “legal technicians” might be thoroughly tested, thoroughly vetted and thoroughly licensed, the “charlatan” potential remains. These LLTs still have not received the depth of legal training attorneys receive. Even attorneys who specialize still have the breadth of knowledge to see and analyze fact patterns in greater depth than most nonlawyers - and somtimes fact patterns are not always as simple as they appear superfically. There is a reason why attorneys are referred as “counselors at law.”
I am not advocating protectionism for attorneys - not by a long shot. I am advocating protectionism for consumers of legal services. Consumers deserve the best the legal industry can give them.
Finally, I agree with the above poster regarding court reform. Maybe the courts should try harder to streamline their hard-to-navigate procedures so they would be more comprehensible and user friendly.
The ABA and law schools have destroyed the profession through their greed - they jacked up tuition to ridiculous amounts to take advantage of the federally insured student loans, and then opened up more and more law schools each and every year. Law schools LIE about salary and employment statistics to get people to enroll. Now the market is flooded with attorneys buried under mountains of student loan debt, so they cannot afford to drop their hourly rates to an amount that low income individuals can afford. Because of the ridiculous tuition hikes, now the amount of people who cannot afford legal services has grown as newly-minted lawyers just cannot lower fees due to the student loan burden.
Law professor salaries have increased significantly as the law schools raked in more and more money, yet law schools and professors FAIL to teach law students hardly anything about the actual practice of law. Law schools tightly hold onto the archaic Socratic method/case method for the sake of tradition, but it does nothing to prepare one for the practice of law. So law students pay sooooo much for so little in return.
The solution the ABA, law schools, and law professors now propose to help the poor afford legal services??? Allow people to practice law without attending law school at all. After ripping of hundreds of thousands of students across the nation and making legal services MORE expensive to high student debt loads, they now suggest letting people skip law school altogether to represent this underserved market by charging lower fees. It was law school creed that contributed to this lack of representation for low-income individuals - those buried in debt can only lower their fees so far.
I have no ill will towards those who use this route to practice law in a limited manner - many of them will do great at the area of law they enter. My anger is towards the greed of the law school and the ABA which contributed to this mess, and the fact they they seem to be doing more to hurt new lawyers than help all the new lawyers they have pumped into the market. Also, the fact that law schools still use the archaic and utterly useless case method to ‘train’ lawyers to practice law in this day and age, and the fact that they charge an arm and a leg for one to ‘learn’ how to practice law using this method, is ridiculous.
It looks like you have been giving some serious thought to this. That’s more than what can be said about those in the law schools who have been motivated more by greed than a concern about the impact upon society.
Some typos in my 3rd paragraph that I wanted to correct:
“After ripping of hundreds of thousands of students across the nation and making legal services MORE expensive *DUE* to high student debt loads, they now suggest letting people skip law school altogether to represent this underserved market by charging lower fees. It was law school *greed* that contributed to this lack of representation for low-income individuals - those buried in debt can only lower their fees so far.”
Will they be required to carry malpractice insurance at no less than the same rate as attorneys who practice in the same areas, such as insurance claims, family law, health care issues, and bankruptcy? (From a purely actuarial standpoint, it should cost them more, since not having the in-depth education will most likely precipitate major SNAFUs when they decide to overreach their skill set, thinking they know just as much as an attorney.)
Yes. Even if their licensing entity does not require it, they would be foolish NOT to carry malpractice and/or E&O insurance. No matter how conscientious they may be, their licenses would allow them to practice only “limited” law. It’s easy to imagine a practitioner inadvertently crossing the line.
For the public’s sake I would be very concerned about the borderline, overzealous and egotistical ones who would deliberately push the envelope. These types are encountered from time to time. They are on some sort of mission and use their clients as pawns to further their personal causes. Another reason why this entire notion of allowing lesser-trained people “practice” law concerns me. And, again, I was a paralegal and, logically, I should be delighted about this development. I am not.
Yes. Even if their licensing entity does not require it, they would be foolish not to carry malpractice or E&O insurance. By the very nature of their authority, i.e., practice of “limited” law, even the most conscientious of practitioners could cross the UPL line. Their clients deserve an avenue of recourse.
The practitioners I am most concerned about are the ones who see this “limited” licensure as a way to further a cause, or, worse, exercise their ego by playing lawyer. Dangerous people! Their clients very much deserve an avenue of recourse.
Once again, I was a paralegal. Again, logically, I should be delighted about this whole idea. I am not.
I can’t imagine the State Bar of California approving this sort of thing any time soon. After all, these are the same people who couldn’t see fit to approve bringing CA’s Rules of Professional Conduct in line with the ABA Model Rules, as interpreted in most other jurisdictions, after almost five years of dithering about. The idea of the State with the most lawyers—and probably the highest number of underemployed attorneys—approving paralegals doing legal work—even on a limited basis—without some sort of backlash, is unlikely. Bar fees for attorneys currently start at $430 per year, and attorneys have to inform clients in writing that they do not carry malpractice insurance, (—which is the kiss of death when those “helpful” internet websites warn potential clients never to hire an attorney who doesn’t carry malpractice insurance.)
The areas in which most people might seek out certified legal assistants would most likely be family law, small claims, landlord/tenant issues, debt collection, bankruptcy, and VA claims. In California, the Judicial Council has published enough forms and do-it-yourself manuals related to the first 4 issues for most people of average intelligence to file their own claims. There are also numerous legal aid organizations who provide help with unlawful detainer, small claims, and family law issues. W/R/T Bankruptcy, the district courts have published a similar number of forms that will enable petitioners to file everything up to responses to adversary proceedings. VA Claims representatives must be certified by the OGC and aren’t permitted to collect a fee for merely filling out the forms. And since legal assistants can’t give “legal advice,” there goes the opportunity for the consult fee and the claims appeal.
It would be easy to go on. It’s one thing for a paralegal to work on such issues with a team of attorneys, who are ultimately responsible; quite another for them to pursue it independently. In the end, clients get what they pay for.
I’m not an attorney, but I am a 100% service connected, disabled veteran. If you try to fight the VA for benefits that you are entitled to, you are in for very long, laws that the VA seem to pull out of a hat, and just uncalled for harassment. I have a brother-in-law that works for a law firm in NY. (Cahill, Gordon’s, and Reindel) that, from what I have read, have been providing pro bono work for several years, by giving free legal information to the homeless, veterans, and victims of domestic violence. I am sure that all of these people would have no idea about who to turn to for help, if it were not for the help of the mentioned law firm. So I would just like to say thank you for these services, even before this became law on Jan. 01, 2015. I know my brother-in-law worked very hard in what he does, and I am proud of him for working for a law firm that goes the extra mile, for persons who are either too poor, or have no idea that these services are available to them. So thank you to Cahill, Gordon’s, and Reindel, for going the extra mile.
So the reaction from the lawyers is that any amount of training short of the full monty is not enough, yet self-represented litigants facing professional counsel are on a level playing field. Does the idiocy of that proposition never come up in law school?
Except for small claims court, etc., courts discourage pro se litigants. Maybe they discourage them because they want to ensure full protection and exercise of their rights. As a practical matter courts discourage pro se litigants because they don’t want their decisions appealed on grounds of inadequate representation. Courts will often appoint counsel to stand by or paralegals to help them.
Don’t forget, litigants have a right to counsel if they want it, but it is never compulsory or mandatory. Anyone can represent him/herself in court, but as the old saying goes, s/he who does has a fool for a client.
I don’t see how a pro se litigant in a civil case can appeal on grounds of inadequate representation. Are there any cases on that?
I think the reason courts and judges prefer that litigants be represented is simply that dockets are crowded and it takes valuable court time explaining the law to them, and confused pro se litigants who don’t know what they’re doing slow down the proceedings.
I should have been more specific. My remark about pro se representation might apply more to criminal cases than to civil cases.
I appreciate your comment about representation in court. Pro se litigants may think they know the law regarding their claims, but they do not realize they have to follow rules of civil procedure, just as if they were represented.
While I understand many new attorneys are having difficulty finding jobs in the market, it is due in part, to the economy. Legal expertise and representation is not cheap and there is no plausible “insurance” to help people defray the cost as we see in the medical arena. I believe this will be an evolving area and I welcome the advancement. Many of us are familiar with M.D.‘s, P.A.-C’s and ARNP’s. An ARNP did not go to medical school but have the authority to practice medicine with no restrictions as does a M.D., but with less end-cost to the insurance companies and more importantly the customers. I know several ARNP’s that are more qualified to practice medicine than some of the M.D.‘s I know. It is about competency and the will to serve the people, especially the underserved.
ms.chief53@yahoo.com said:
Hallelujah….
Posted: Jan 03, 2015 09:25 pm CST
Reply to this comment | Flag this comment for moderation
TimT said:
So, the bottom line appears to me to be this: We’re going to create an environment in which a legal services company can use a business model to provide the illusion of competent legal services and charge much less than lawyers can economically afford to charge, thinking that this is going to help people who would not hire a lawyer, but that it is not going to take food off of lawyer’s plates because people who would have hired a lawyer will still choose to pay the lawyer’s higher prices. What could possibly go wrong? Wouldn’t it make more sense to address whatever makes it economically impossible for lawyers to charge affordable prices? Besides law school prices/student loans, one of those things is the systemic inefficiency in court procedure. Our judicial branches don’t seem to me to have the wherewithal to reform patchwork rules and procedures that grew up in response to statutes constitutional cases, and other lawsuits. What is called ‘reengineering’ or total quality management or its successors in the business world hasn’t scratched the surface in judicial procedures. I can’t help thinking those kinds of reforms would reduce lawyer’s costs and make it economically possible for me to offer lower prices.
Posted: Jan 09, 2015 07:27 am CST
Reply to this comment | Flag this comment for moderation
Massively bad idea said:
As if it isn’t hard enough for people who went to law school to find a job - now we’ll make it so that people who didn’t go to law school can compete with them.
Posted: Jan 09, 2015 03:14 pm CST
Reply to this comment | Flag this comment for moderation
Emjaycee said:
My thoughts exactly.
Posted: Jan 15, 2015 03:28 am CST
Reply to this comment | Flag this comment for moderation
PerfectSense said:
There’s a special place for these law school professors. Their bloated salaries indentured an entire generation of lawyers, causing millions of people to go without legal services. Then they have the audacity to take what little market remains away from the serfs they created. Sleep well, Professor Hadfield.
Posted: Jan 09, 2015 12:37 pm CST
Reply to this comment | Flag this comment for moderation
Displaced Legal Professional said:
I was a paralegal for more than eleven years. Logically, then, I should have an interest in any proposition that would permit nonlawyers to “practice” law. It would seem that such proposition would mean work for me. However, I have no such interest. I think any proposition that allows nonlawyers to “practice” law would not properly serve the public. Even with any relaxation of UPL laws I still see it as minefield I would prefer not to tread.
Moreover, sorry, but I really cannot wrap my arms around the notion that real, qualified attorney help is so unavailable. In recent years law schools have turned out scores of new attorneys. So many of these new attorneys cannot find attorney jobs. Many of these attorneys are so hungry for work and money, not to mention hungry in their stomachs, that they compete with paralegals for their jobs. So, then, why can these attorneys not take on all those folks who are starving for legal help? These attorneys certainly will not charge the same fees that a twenty-year Big Law partner will charge. Some of them might take cases pro bono at least for a time to collect experience so they are better positioned to be hired into an attorney job.
Also it’s vital to note that even though these “legal technicians” might be thoroughly tested, thoroughly vetted and thoroughly licensed, the “charlatan” potential remains. These LLTs still have not received the depth of legal training attorneys receive. Even attorneys who specialize still have the breadth of knowledge to see and analyze fact patterns in greater depth than most nonlawyers - and somtimes fact patterns are not always as simple as they appear superfically. There is a reason why attorneys are referred as “counselors at law.”
I am not advocating protectionism for attorneys - not by a long shot. I am advocating protectionism for consumers of legal services. Consumers deserve the best the legal industry can give them.
Finally, I agree with the above poster regarding court reform. Maybe the courts should try harder to streamline their hard-to-navigate procedures so they would be more comprehensible and user friendly.
Posted: Jan 09, 2015 02:19 pm CST
Reply to this comment | Flag this comment for moderation
TBP said:
The ABA and law schools have destroyed the profession through their greed - they jacked up tuition to ridiculous amounts to take advantage of the federally insured student loans, and then opened up more and more law schools each and every year. Law schools LIE about salary and employment statistics to get people to enroll. Now the market is flooded with attorneys buried under mountains of student loan debt, so they cannot afford to drop their hourly rates to an amount that low income individuals can afford. Because of the ridiculous tuition hikes, now the amount of people who cannot afford legal services has grown as newly-minted lawyers just cannot lower fees due to the student loan burden.
Law professor salaries have increased significantly as the law schools raked in more and more money, yet law schools and professors FAIL to teach law students hardly anything about the actual practice of law. Law schools tightly hold onto the archaic Socratic method/case method for the sake of tradition, but it does nothing to prepare one for the practice of law. So law students pay sooooo much for so little in return.
The solution the ABA, law schools, and law professors now propose to help the poor afford legal services??? Allow people to practice law without attending law school at all. After ripping of hundreds of thousands of students across the nation and making legal services MORE expensive to high student debt loads, they now suggest letting people skip law school altogether to represent this underserved market by charging lower fees. It was law school creed that contributed to this lack of representation for low-income individuals - those buried in debt can only lower their fees so far.
I have no ill will towards those who use this route to practice law in a limited manner - many of them will do great at the area of law they enter. My anger is towards the greed of the law school and the ABA which contributed to this mess, and the fact they they seem to be doing more to hurt new lawyers than help all the new lawyers they have pumped into the market. Also, the fact that law schools still use the archaic and utterly useless case method to ‘train’ lawyers to practice law in this day and age, and the fact that they charge an arm and a leg for one to ‘learn’ how to practice law using this method, is ridiculous.
Posted: Jan 09, 2015 02:54 pm CST
Reply to this comment | Flag this comment for moderation
Retired Atty said:
Well said.
It looks like you have been giving some serious thought to this. That’s more than what can be said about those in the law schools who have been motivated more by greed than a concern about the impact upon society.
Posted: Jan 10, 2015 02:51 pm CST
Reply to this comment | Flag this comment for moderation
TBP said:
Some typos in my 3rd paragraph that I wanted to correct:
“After ripping of hundreds of thousands of students across the nation and making legal services MORE expensive *DUE* to high student debt loads, they now suggest letting people skip law school altogether to represent this underserved market by charging lower fees. It was law school *greed* that contributed to this lack of representation for low-income individuals - those buried in debt can only lower their fees so far.”
Posted: Jan 09, 2015 02:59 pm CST
Reply to this comment | Flag this comment for moderation
BMF said:
Will they be required to carry malpractice insurance at no less than the same rate as attorneys who practice in the same areas, such as insurance claims, family law, health care issues, and bankruptcy? (From a purely actuarial standpoint, it should cost them more, since not having the in-depth education will most likely precipitate major SNAFUs when they decide to overreach their skill set, thinking they know just as much as an attorney.)
Posted: Jan 09, 2015 10:37 pm CST
Reply to this comment | Flag this comment for moderation
Displaced Legal Professional said:
Yes. Even if their licensing entity does not require it, they would be foolish NOT to carry malpractice and/or E&O insurance. No matter how conscientious they may be, their licenses would allow them to practice only “limited” law. It’s easy to imagine a practitioner inadvertently crossing the line.
For the public’s sake I would be very concerned about the borderline, overzealous and egotistical ones who would deliberately push the envelope. These types are encountered from time to time. They are on some sort of mission and use their clients as pawns to further their personal causes. Another reason why this entire notion of allowing lesser-trained people “practice” law concerns me. And, again, I was a paralegal and, logically, I should be delighted about this development. I am not.
Posted: Jan 10, 2015 09:35 am CST
Reply to this comment | Flag this comment for moderation
Displaced Legal Professional said:
Yes. Even if their licensing entity does not require it, they would be foolish not to carry malpractice or E&O insurance. By the very nature of their authority, i.e., practice of “limited” law, even the most conscientious of practitioners could cross the UPL line. Their clients deserve an avenue of recourse.
The practitioners I am most concerned about are the ones who see this “limited” licensure as a way to further a cause, or, worse, exercise their ego by playing lawyer. Dangerous people! Their clients very much deserve an avenue of recourse.
Once again, I was a paralegal. Again, logically, I should be delighted about this whole idea. I am not.
Posted: Jan 10, 2015 09:41 am CST
Reply to this comment | Flag this comment for moderation
Displaced Legal Professional said:
Apologies for the double postings.
Posted: Jan 10, 2015 09:42 am CST
Reply to this comment | Flag this comment for moderation
BMF said:
I can’t imagine the State Bar of California approving this sort of thing any time soon. After all, these are the same people who couldn’t see fit to approve bringing CA’s Rules of Professional Conduct in line with the ABA Model Rules, as interpreted in most other jurisdictions, after almost five years of dithering about. The idea of the State with the most lawyers—and probably the highest number of underemployed attorneys—approving paralegals doing legal work—even on a limited basis—without some sort of backlash, is unlikely. Bar fees for attorneys currently start at $430 per year, and attorneys have to inform clients in writing that they do not carry malpractice insurance, (—which is the kiss of death when those “helpful” internet websites warn potential clients never to hire an attorney who doesn’t carry malpractice insurance.)
The areas in which most people might seek out certified legal assistants would most likely be family law, small claims, landlord/tenant issues, debt collection, bankruptcy, and VA claims. In California, the Judicial Council has published enough forms and do-it-yourself manuals related to the first 4 issues for most people of average intelligence to file their own claims. There are also numerous legal aid organizations who provide help with unlawful detainer, small claims, and family law issues. W/R/T Bankruptcy, the district courts have published a similar number of forms that will enable petitioners to file everything up to responses to adversary proceedings. VA Claims representatives must be certified by the OGC and aren’t permitted to collect a fee for merely filling out the forms. And since legal assistants can’t give “legal advice,” there goes the opportunity for the consult fee and the claims appeal.
It would be easy to go on. It’s one thing for a paralegal to work on such issues with a team of attorneys, who are ultimately responsible; quite another for them to pursue it independently. In the end, clients get what they pay for.
Posted: Jan 10, 2015 09:48 pm CST
Reply to this comment | Flag this comment for moderation
Curmudgeon said:
Dumb idea.
Posted: Jan 12, 2015 01:23 pm CST
Reply to this comment | Flag this comment for moderation
Lee said:
I’m not an attorney, but I am a 100% service connected, disabled veteran. If you try to fight the VA for benefits that you are entitled to, you are in for very long, laws that the VA seem to pull out of a hat, and just uncalled for harassment. I have a brother-in-law that works for a law firm in NY. (Cahill, Gordon’s, and Reindel) that, from what I have read, have been providing pro bono work for several years, by giving free legal information to the homeless, veterans, and victims of domestic violence. I am sure that all of these people would have no idea about who to turn to for help, if it were not for the help of the mentioned law firm. So I would just like to say thank you for these services, even before this became law on Jan. 01, 2015. I know my brother-in-law worked very hard in what he does, and I am proud of him for working for a law firm that goes the extra mile, for persons who are either too poor, or have no idea that these services are available to them. So thank you to Cahill, Gordon’s, and Reindel, for going the extra mile.
Posted: Jan 12, 2015 11:13 pm CST
Reply to this comment | Flag this comment for moderation
Chris Budgell said:
So the reaction from the lawyers is that any amount of training short of the full monty is not enough, yet self-represented litigants facing professional counsel are on a level playing field. Does the idiocy of that proposition never come up in law school?
Posted: Jan 13, 2015 07:42 pm CST
Reply to this comment | Flag this comment for moderation
Displaced Legal Professional said:
Except for small claims court, etc., courts discourage pro se litigants. Maybe they discourage them because they want to ensure full protection and exercise of their rights. As a practical matter courts discourage pro se litigants because they don’t want their decisions appealed on grounds of inadequate representation. Courts will often appoint counsel to stand by or paralegals to help them.
Don’t forget, litigants have a right to counsel if they want it, but it is never compulsory or mandatory. Anyone can represent him/herself in court, but as the old saying goes, s/he who does has a fool for a client.
Posted: Jan 13, 2015 07:49 pm CST
Reply to this comment | Flag this comment for moderation
Emjaycee said:
I don’t see how a pro se litigant in a civil case can appeal on grounds of inadequate representation. Are there any cases on that?
I think the reason courts and judges prefer that litigants be represented is simply that dockets are crowded and it takes valuable court time explaining the law to them, and confused pro se litigants who don’t know what they’re doing slow down the proceedings.
Posted: Jan 15, 2015 03:46 am CST
Reply to this comment | Flag this comment for moderation
Displaced Legal Professional said:
I should have been more specific. My remark about pro se representation might apply more to criminal cases than to civil cases.
I appreciate your comment about representation in court. Pro se litigants may think they know the law regarding their claims, but they do not realize they have to follow rules of civil procedure, just as if they were represented.
Posted: Jan 15, 2015 09:29 am CST
Reply to this comment | Flag this comment for moderation
jdca67 said:
While I understand many new attorneys are having difficulty finding jobs in the market, it is due in part, to the economy. Legal expertise and representation is not cheap and there is no plausible “insurance” to help people defray the cost as we see in the medical arena. I believe this will be an evolving area and I welcome the advancement. Many of us are familiar with M.D.‘s, P.A.-C’s and ARNP’s. An ARNP did not go to medical school but have the authority to practice medicine with no restrictions as does a M.D., but with less end-cost to the insurance companies and more importantly the customers. I know several ARNP’s that are more qualified to practice medicine than some of the M.D.‘s I know. It is about competency and the will to serve the people, especially the underserved.
Posted: Jan 15, 2015 05:32 pm CST
Reply to this comment | Flag this comment for moderation