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. Actually, and most strikingly, the ruling failed to address the central issue to the whole case: Namely, Black Knight/LPS, who was NEVER a party to the State court litigation, and who is under a 2013 consent judgment in Indiana (where it has stipulated to the forgery of loan documents, the ones specifically at issue in my case)never disclosed itself in State court or remediated the forged loan documents as was REQUIRED of them by the CJ. In essence, what the court is willfully ignoring, is that it is setting a precedent that the supplier of a defective product, one whom is under a consent judgment stipulating to such, and under obligation to remediate said defective product, can: 1.) Ignore the CJ 2.) Allow counsel to commit fraud on the state court 3.) Then try to hide behind Rooker Feldman doctrine as a bar to being held culpable in federal court. The problem here is the court is in direct conflict with its own ruling(s) in Johnson v. Pushpin Holdings & Iqbal- 780 F.3d 728, at 730 “What Johnson adds - what the defendants in this suit have failed to appreciate—is that federal courts retain jurisdiction to award damages for fraud that imposes extrajudicial injury. The Supreme Court drew that very line in Exxon Mobil ... Iqbal alleges that the defendants conducted a racketeering enterprise that predates the state court’s judgments ...but Exxon Mobil shows that the Rooker Feldman doctrine asks what injury the plaintiff asks the federal court to redress, not whether the injury is “intertwined” with something else …Because Iqbal seeks damages for activity that (he alleges) predates the state litigation and caused injury independently of it, the Rooker-Feldman doctrine does not block this suit. It must be reinstated.” So, as I already noted to others, I now have the chance to bring my case to SCOTUS; the ruling by Wood & Posner is flawed on numerous levels,BUT most troubling is the fact that the authors KNOW it's a flawed ruling and choose to ignore the flaws for one simple reason: The courts have decided to agree with former AG Eric Holder that national banks "Are too big to fail" and must win at any cost-even that of due process, case precedent, & the truth....Let's see if SCOTUS wants a bite at the apple.

  2. I am in NJ & just found out that there is a judgment against me in an action by Driver's Solutions LLC in IN. I was never served with any Court pleadings, etc. and the only thing that I can find out is that they were using an old Staten Island NY address for me. I have been in NJ for over 20 years and cannot get any response from Drivers Solutions in IN. They have a different lawyer now. I need to get this vacated or stopped - it is now almost double & at 18%. Any help would be appreciated. Thank you.

  3. I am in NJ & just found out that there is a judgment against me in an action by Driver's Solutions LLC in IN. I was never served with any Court pleadings, etc. and the only thing that I can find out is that they were using an old Staten Island NY address for me. I have been in NJ for over 20 years and cannot get any response from Drivers Solutions in IN. They have a different lawyer now. I need to get this vacated or stopped - it is now almost double & at 18%. Any help would be appreciated. Thank you.

  4. Please I need help with my class action lawsuits, im currently in pro-se and im having hard time findiNG A LAWYER TO ASSIST ME

  5. Access to the court (judiciary branch of government) is the REAL problem, NOT necessarily lack of access to an attorney. Unfortunately, I've lived in a legal and financial hell for the past six years due to a divorce (where I was, supposedly, represented by an attorney) in which I was defrauded of settlement and the other party (and helpers) enriched through the fraud. When I attempted to introduce evidence and testify (pro se) in a foreclosure/eviction, I was silenced (apparently on procedural grounds, as research I've done since indicates). I was thrown out of a residence which was to be sold, by a judge who refused to allow me to speak in (the supposedly "informal") small claims court where the eviction proceeding (by ex-brother-in-law) was held. Six years and I can't even get back on solid or stable ground ... having bank account seized twice, unlawfully ... and now, for the past year, being dragged into court - again, contrary to law and appellate decisions - by former attorney, who is trying to force payment from exempt funds. Friday will mark fifth appearance. Hopefully, I'll be allowed to speak. The situation I find myself in shouldn't even be possible, much less dragging out with no end in sight, for years. I've done nothing wrong, but am watching a lot of wrong being accomplished under court jurisdiction; only because I was married to someone who wanted and was granted a divorce (but was not willing to assume the responsibilities that come with granting the divorce). In fact, the recalcitrant party was enriched by well over $100k, although it was necessarily split with other actors. Pro bono help? It's a nice dream ... but that's all it is, for too many. Meanwhile, injustice marches on.

ADVERTISEMENT