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. I have been on this program while on parole from 2011-2013. No person should be forced mentally to share private details of their personal life with total strangers. Also giving permission for a mental therapist to report to your parole agent that your not participating in group therapy because you don't have the financial mean to be in the group therapy. I was personally singled out and sent back three times for not having money and also sent back within the six month when you aren't to be sent according to state law. I will work to het this INSOMM's removed from this state. I also had twelve or thirteen parole agents with a fifteen month period. Thanks for your time.

  2. Our nation produces very few jurists of the caliber of Justice DOUGLAS and his peers these days. Here is that great civil libertarian, who recognized government as both a blessing and, when corrupted by ideological interests, a curse: "Once the investigator has only the conscience of government as a guide, the conscience can become ‘ravenous,’ as Cromwell, bent on destroying Thomas More, said in Bolt, A Man For All Seasons (1960), p. 120. The First Amendment mirrors many episodes where men, harried and harassed by government, sought refuge in their conscience, as these lines of Thomas More show: ‘MORE: And when we stand before God, and you are sent to Paradise for doing according to your conscience, *575 and I am damned for not doing according to mine, will you come with me, for fellowship? ‘CRANMER: So those of us whose names are there are damned, Sir Thomas? ‘MORE: I don't know, Your Grace. I have no window to look into another man's conscience. I condemn no one. ‘CRANMER: Then the matter is capable of question? ‘MORE: Certainly. ‘CRANMER: But that you owe obedience to your King is not capable of question. So weigh a doubt against a certainty—and sign. ‘MORE: Some men think the Earth is round, others think it flat; it is a matter capable of question. But if it is flat, will the King's command make it round? And if it is round, will the King's command flatten it? No, I will not sign.’ Id., pp. 132—133. DOUGLAS THEN WROTE: Where government is the Big Brother,11 privacy gives way to surveillance. **909 But our commitment is otherwise. *576 By the First Amendment we have staked our security on freedom to promote a multiplicity of ideas, to associate at will with kindred spirits, and to defy governmental intrusion into these precincts" Gibson v. Florida Legislative Investigation Comm., 372 U.S. 539, 574-76, 83 S. Ct. 889, 908-09, 9 L. Ed. 2d 929 (1963) Mr. Justice DOUGLAS, concurring. I write: Happy Memorial Day to all -- God please bless our fallen who lived and died to preserve constitutional governance in our wonderful series of Republics. And God open the eyes of those government officials who denounce the constitutions of these Republics by arbitrary actions arising out capricious motives.

  3. From back in the day before secularism got a stranglehold on Hoosier jurists comes this great excerpt via Indiana federal court judge Allan Sharp, dedicated to those many Indiana government attorneys (with whom I have dealt) who count the law as a mere tool, an optional tool that is not to be used when political correctness compels a more acceptable result than merely following the path that the law directs: ALLEN SHARP, District Judge. I. In a scene following a visit by Henry VIII to the home of Sir Thomas More, playwriter Robert Bolt puts the following words into the mouths of his characters: Margaret: Father, that man's bad. MORE: There is no law against that. ROPER: There is! God's law! MORE: Then God can arrest him. ROPER: Sophistication upon sophistication! MORE: No, sheer simplicity. The law, Roper, the law. I know what's legal not what's right. And I'll stick to what's legal. ROPER: Then you set man's law above God's! MORE: No, far below; but let me draw your attention to a fact I'm not God. The currents and eddies of right and wrong, which you find such plain sailing, I can't navigate. I'm no voyager. But in the thickets of law, oh, there I'm a forester. I doubt if there's a man alive who could follow me there, thank God... ALICE: (Exasperated, pointing after Rich) While you talk, he's gone! MORE: And go he should, if he was the Devil himself, until he broke the law! ROPER: So now you'd give the Devil benefit of law! MORE: Yes. What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil? ROPER: I'd cut down every law in England to do that! MORE: (Roused and excited) Oh? (Advances on Roper) And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned round on you where would you hide, Roper, the laws being flat? (He leaves *1257 him) This country's planted thick with laws from coast to coast man's laws, not God's and if you cut them down and you're just the man to do it d'you really think you would stand upright in the winds that would blow then? (Quietly) Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake. ROPER: I have long suspected this; this is the golden calf; the law's your god. MORE: (Wearily) Oh, Roper, you're a fool, God's my god... (Rather bitterly) But I find him rather too (Very bitterly) subtle... I don't know where he is nor what he wants. ROPER: My God wants service, to the end and unremitting; nothing else! MORE: (Dryly) Are you sure that's God! He sounds like Moloch. But indeed it may be God And whoever hunts for me, Roper, God or Devil, will find me hiding in the thickets of the law! And I'll hide my daughter with me! Not hoist her up the mainmast of your seagoing principles! They put about too nimbly! (Exit More. They all look after him). Pgs. 65-67, A MAN FOR ALL SEASONS A Play in Two Acts, Robert Bolt, Random House, New York, 1960. Linley E. Pearson, Atty. Gen. of Indiana, Indianapolis, for defendants. Childs v. Duckworth, 509 F. Supp. 1254, 1256 (N.D. Ind. 1981) aff'd, 705 F.2d 915 (7th Cir. 1983)

  4. "Meanwhile small- and mid-size firms are getting squeezed and likely will not survive unless they become a boutique firm." I've been a business attorney in small, and now mid-size firm for over 30 years, and for over 30 years legal consultants have been preaching this exact same mantra of impending doom for small and mid-sized firms -- verbatim. This claim apparently helps them gin up merger opportunities from smaller firms who become convinced that they need to become larger overnight. The claim that large corporations are interested in cost-saving and efficiency has likewise been preached for decades, and is likewise bunk. If large corporations had any real interest in saving money they wouldn't use large law firms whose rates are substantially higher than those of high-quality mid-sized firms.

  5. The family is the foundation of all human government. That is the Grand Design. Modern governments throw off this Design and make bureaucratic war against the family, as does Hollywood and cultural elitists such as third wave feminists. Since WWII we have been on a ship of fools that way, with both the elite and government and their social engineering hacks relentlessly attacking the very foundation of social order. And their success? See it in the streets of Fergusson, on the food stamp doles (mostly broken families)and in the above article. Reject the Grand Design for true social function, enter the Glorious State to manage social dysfunction. Our Brave New World will be a prison camp, and we will welcome it as the only way to manage given the anarchy without it.

ADVERTISEMENT