ILNews

Limited licensing programs gain traction in the legal community

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The idea of non-lawyers practicing law sparks howls of protest from attorneys but with a handful of state seriously considering the proposition and a national committee recommending the concept, the push toward limited licenses is gaining momentum.

A primary concern is that individuals with special licensing will take work away from established attorneys and make it more difficult for new lawyers to gain a foothold. This worry, however, is getting overshadowed by the growing problem of more and more people going without legal representative because they cannot afford an attorney.

Littlewood Littlewood

The state of Washington is the first to develop a program to train and license individuals in very narrow areas of the law. California and New York are reviewing limited licenses.

The American Bar Association Task Force on the Future of Legal Education described the increasing attention to limited licensing as a positive development.

Led by retired Indiana Chief Justice Randall T. Shepard, the ABA committee is advocating the legal community look for alternatives to the three-year degree program that yields “professional generalists.” The task force recommends law schools develop programs for specialized licenses and that state regulators formulate licensing systems without limiting access or raising the price of legal services.

The experience in Washington shows that the road to limited licenses can be very long. After 10 years of talking – and fighting – about alternative legal practitioners, the Washington Supreme Court adopted the rule in June 2012.

What was considerably easier was convincing the state’s law schools to participate, according to Washington State Bar Association Executive Director Paula Littlewood and Limited License Legal Technician Board Chair Steve Crossland. The three schools in Washington readily collaborated to develop a curriculum of 15 credit hours which couples with a basic core curriculum taught in the community college system.

At the law schools, the limited license curriculum – which will begin in the fall of 2014 – is designed to be a mix of theory and hands-on training. Also, all law professors will be paired with a practicing attorney. Littlewood recalled one professor who quipped that students coming through the specialized license program ould be better trained than the law students.

Crossland Crossland

Once students complete the program, they will be limited license legal technicians. They will be able to file forms and give advice without an attorney’s supervision, but they will not be allowed to represent clients in court or negotiate on behalf of clients. Also the LLLTs will be required to carry malpractice insurance.

Representatives of three law schools in Indiana had differing reactions to limited licensing.

Gary Roberts, dean emeritus at Indiana University Robert H. McKinney School of Law, said members of the bar would likely “go crazy” at the suggestion of a limited legal license. But he believes alternative licenses will eventually be granted in Indiana.

“It’s coming,” he said. “I think it’s inevitable.”

Notre Dame Law School Associate Dean Mark McKenna thinks law schools would take a hard look at tailoring their curriculums to create a course of study for limited legal practitioners if the state approved such licenses. The South Bend school would probably talk about offering such a program, giving consideration to how a limited license track would fit with the school’s mission and current J.D. program, he said.

Speaking after Shepard made a presentation about legal education at Notre Dame in late September, McKenna was receptive to the idea of limited licenses. He personally considers limited licensing to be a good solution if the practitioners can do their jobs well and they fill a need in the market.

“There are tons of services that are not being adequately provided by lawyers, and I would like to see more lawyers doing those things but at the very least, I would like to see those services being rendered,” McKenna said, pointing to the number of people who go through divorces or do small-business transactions without legal advice because they cannot afford it. “I think that’s something the legal profession has to take more seriously.”

Roberts pointed to the growing need for affordable legal services. Currently, small-business owners as well as lower- and middle-income people are going without legal assistance because the price is too high. When that demand for less expensive services becomes a “ground swell,” he said, a limited license program will be introduced.

The argument that a limited licensed practitioner would not be as good as someone with a full, three-year law school degree was dismissed by Roberts as nonsense. To do a simple divorce or draw up a lease contract, an individual does not need to have taken the full range of courses offered in law schools.

roberts-gary-mug.jpg Roberts

Moreover the lawyers who, on the one hand, say the third year of law school is unnecessary but, on the other hand, contend only someone with a J.D. can perform legal services are talking from both sides of their mouths, Roberts said.

At Indiana Tech Law School, Dean Peter Alexander disputed the contention that practitioners with narrow training can produce legal services that matches the quality of the work done by law school graduates. The ability to analyze and synthesize as necessary to fully serve clients comes only from studying for three years at a law school, he said.

“I think legal education helps to transform people from whatever they are before law school into lawyers,” Alexander said. “Without that transformation, I don’t think you can offer the same level of services to clients.”

The problem of access to justice can be addressed by requiring attorneys to do pro bono work, Alexander said. Holding a law license is a privilege, he continued, so lawyers would have a responsibility to offer a certain numbers of hours each year to handling charity cases.

In October 2013, the Indiana State Bar Association Professional Legal Education, Admission and Development Section issued a report that included a review of special licensing. The section recommended against moving forward with legal technicians at this time but left the door open for future consideration by advising the state bar to monitor the success of such programs in other jurisdictions.

The Washington State Bar Association is overseeing the LLLT program. It established the curriculum, set the rules of professional conduct and created the two bar exams the students will have to take (one at the end of their community college rotation and other after they complete the law school courses).

Also, the state bar association provided seed money of $130,000 to get the program started. Littlewood and Crossland said once students start paying the fees for licensing, the program will become self-sufficient.

In Washington, the motivation for limited licenses came about because many state residents are either going without legal assistance or they are getting harmed by individuals who misrepresent their legal abilities.

Whenever lawyers complained in the past that LLLTs would take clients away, Littlewood reminded them of the number of people going without representation. If attorneys were doing the work, she said, there would not be a problem with access to justice.

Now if a lawyer complains, Littlewood has a short answer that highlights the reality.

“It’s here,” she replies. “The debate is over. The (Supreme) Court has spoken.”•

ADVERTISEMENT

  • A good reason for Paralegal Licensing
    One thing this article doesn't mention is that many highly qualified paralegals have the training and experience to perform exactly the types of tasks being considered for LLLTs. The curriculum at the State's accredited paralegal programs could just as easily be tailored to allow paralegals to receive the education, and licensing needed to directly assist with, and perform those specialized tasks - like simple divorces, leases, small claims filings, etc... Paralegals have always been a great solution to the need for low-cost legal services for the under-served in our state - but as with many things in the Hoosier state, we are behind the times.

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. California Sex Offender Management Board (CASOMB) End of Year Report 2014. (page 13) Under the current system many local registering agencies are challenged just keeping up with registration paperwork. It takes an hour or more to process each registrant, the majority of whom are low risk offenders. As a result law enforcement cannot monitor higher risk offenders more intensively in the community due to the sheer numbers on the registry. Some of the consequences of lengthy and unnecessary registration requirements actually destabilize the life’s of registrants and those -such as families- whose lives are often substantially impacted. Such consequences are thought to raise levels of known risk factors while providing no discernible benefit in terms of community safety. The full report is available online at. http://www.casomb.org/index.cfm?pid=231 National Institute of Justice (NIJ) US Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs United States of America. The overall conclusion is that Megan’s law has had no demonstrated effect on sexual offenses in New Jersey, calling into question the justification for start-up and operational costs. Megan’s Law has had no effect on time to first rearrest for known sex offenders and has not reduced sexual reoffending. Neither has it had an impact on the type of sexual reoffense or first-time sexual offense. The study also found that the law had not reduced the number of victims of sexual offenses. The full report is available online at. https://www.ncjrs.gov/app/publications/abstract.aspx? ID=247350 The University of Chicago Press for The Booth School of Business of the University of Chicago and The University of Chicago Law School Article DOI: 10.1086/658483 Conclusion. The data in these three data sets do not strongly support the effectiveness of sex offender registries. The national panel data do not show a significant decrease in the rate of rape or the arrest rate for sexual abuse after implementation of a registry via the Internet. The BJS data that tracked individual sex offenders after their release in 1994 did not show that registration had a significantly negative effect on recidivism. And the D.C. crime data do not show that knowing the location of sex offenders by census block can help protect the locations of sexual abuse. This pattern of noneffectiveness across the data sets does not support the conclusion that sex offender registries are successful in meeting their objectives of increasing public safety and lowering recidivism rates. The full report is available online at. http://www.jstor.org/stable/full/10.1086/658483 These are not isolated conclusions but are the same outcomes in the majority of conclusions and reports on this subject from multiple government agencies and throughout the academic community. People, including the media and other organizations should not rely on and reiterate the statements and opinions of the legislators or other people as to the need for these laws because of the high recidivism rates and the high risk offenders pose to the public which simply is not true and is pure hyperbole and fiction. They should rely on facts and data collected and submitted in reports from the leading authorities and credible experts in the fields such as the following. California Sex Offender Management Board (CASOMB) Sex offender recidivism rate for a new sex offense is 0.8% (page 30) The full report is available online at http://www.cdcr.ca.gov/Adult_Research_Branch/Research_Documents/2014_Outcome_Evaluation_Report_7-6-2015.pdf California Sex Offender Management Board (CASOMB) (page 38) Sex offender recidivism rate for a new sex offense is 1.8% The full report is available online at. http://www.google.com/url?sa= t&source=web&cd=1&ved= 0CCEQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F% 2Fwww.cdcr.ca.gov%2FAdult_ Research_Branch%2FResearch_ documents%2FOutcome_ evaluation_Report_2013.pdf&ei= C9dSVePNF8HfoATX-IBo&usg=AFQjCNE9I6ueHz-o2mZUnuxLPTyiRdjDsQ Bureau of Justice Statistics 5 PERCENT OF SEX OFFENDERS REARRESTED FOR ANOTHER SEX CRIME WITHIN 3 YEARS OF PRISON RELEASE WASHINGTON, D.C. Within 3 years following their 1994 state prison release, 5.3 percent of sex offenders (men who had committed rape or sexual assault) were rearrested for another sex crime, the Justice Department’s Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) announced today. The full report is available online at. http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/press/rsorp94pr.cfm Document title; A Model of Static and Dynamic Sex Offender Risk Assessment Author: Robert J. McGrath, Michael P. Lasher, Georgia F. Cumming Document No.: 236217 Date Received: October 2011 Award Number: 2008-DD-BX-0013 Findings: Study of 759 adult male offenders under community supervision Re-arrest rate: 4.6% after 3-year follow-up The sexual re-offense rates for the 746 released in 2005 are much lower than what many in the public have been led to expect or believe. These low re-offense rates appear to contradict a conventional wisdom that sex offenders have very high sexual re-offense rates. The full report is available online at. https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/236217.pdf Document Title: SEX OFFENDER SENTENCING IN WASHINGTON STATE: RECIDIVISM RATES BY: Washington State Institute For Public Policy. A study of 4,091 sex offenders either released from prison or community supervision form 1994 to 1998 and examined for 5 years Findings: Sex Crime Recidivism Rate: 2.7% Link to Report: http://www.oncefallen.com/files/Washington_SO_Recid_2005.pdf Document Title: Indiana’s Recidivism Rates Decline for Third Consecutive Year BY: Indiana Department of Correction 2009. The recidivism rate for sex offenders returning on a new sex offense was 1.05%, one of the lowest in the nation. In a time when sex offenders continue to face additional post-release requirements that often result in their return to prison for violating technical rules such as registration and residency restrictions, the instances of sex offenders returning to prison due to the commitment of a new sex crime is extremely low. Findings: sex offenders returning on a new sex offense was 1.05% Link to Report: http://www.in.gov/idoc/files/RecidivismRelease.pdf Once again, These are not isolated conclusions but are the same outcomes in the majority of reports on this subject from multiple government agencies and throughout the academic community. No one can doubt that child sexual abuse is traumatic and devastating. The question is not whether the state has an interest in preventing such harm, but whether current laws are effective in doing so. Megan’s law is a failure and is destroying families and their children’s lives and is costing tax payers millions upon millions of dollars. The following is just one example of the estimated cost just to implement SORNA which many states refused to do. From Justice Policy Institute. Estimated cost to implement SORNA Here are some of the estimates made in 2009 expressed in 2014 current dollars: California, $66M; Florida, $34M; Illinois, $24M; New York, $35M; Pennsylvania, $22M; Texas, $44M. In 2014 dollars, Virginia’s estimate for implementation was $14M, and the annual operating cost after that would be $10M. For the US, the total is $547M. That’s over half a billion dollars – every year – for something that doesn’t work. http://www.justicepolicy.org/images/upload/08-08_FAC_SORNACosts_JJ.pdf. Attempting to use under-reporting to justify the existence of the registry is another myth, or a lie. This is another form of misinformation perpetrated by those who either have a fiduciary interest in continuing the unconstitutional treatment of a disfavored group or are seeking to justify their need for punishment for people who have already paid for their crime by loss of their freedom through incarceration and are now attempting to reenter society as honest citizens. When this information is placed into the public’s attention by naive media then you have to wonder if the media also falls into one of these two groups that are not truly interested in reporting the truth. Both of these groups of people that have that type of mentality can be classified as vigilantes, bullies, or sociopaths, and are responsible for the destruction of our constitutional values and the erosion of personal freedoms in this country. I think the media or other organizations need to do a in depth investigation into the false assumptions and false data that has been used to further these laws and to research all the collateral damages being caused by these laws and the unconstitutional injustices that are occurring across the country. They should include these injustices in their report so the public can be better informed on what is truly happening in this country on this subject. Thank you for your time.

  2. Freedom as granted in the Constitution cannot be summarily disallowed without Due Process. Unable to to to the gym, church, bowling alley? What is this 1984 level nonsense? Congrats to Brian for having the courage to say that this was enough! and Congrats to the ACLU on the win!

  3. America's hyper-phobia about convicted sex offenders must end! Politicians must stop pandering to knee-jerk public hysteria. And the public needs to learn the facts. Research by the California Sex Offender Management Board as shown a recidivism rate for convicted sex offenders of less than 1%. Less than 1%! Furthermore, research shows that by year 17 after their conviction, a convicted sex offender is no more likely to commit a new sex offense than any other member of the public. Put away your torches and pitchforks. Get the facts. Stop hysteria.

  4. He was convicted 23 years ago. How old was he then? He probably was a juvenile. People do stupid things, especially before their brain is fully developed. Why are we continuing to punish him in 2016? If he hasn't re-offended by now, it's very, very unlikely he ever will. He paid for his mistake sufficiently. Let him live his life in peace.

  5. This year, Notre Dame actually enrolled an equal amount of male and female students.

ADVERTISEMENT