Important Step Forward with Washington State Legal Technician Rule

Lots of us have been watching this long-standing but very important saga.

The Washington State Supreme Court has now by Order approved a Rule generally permitting non-lawyer legal technicians.  The Order does not itself authorize specific areas of legal technician work; that authorization will be made later by the Court, based on recommendations from the newly created “Limited License Legal Technician Board.”  The Board is to be appointed by the Supreme Court, and there will be a clear majority (9 out of 13) of lawyers on the Board.  I think the assumption is that family law is likely to be an early area.  The Order was not unanimous, but issued over three dissenting votes.  The proposal for the concept was made in 2008.

The project offers significant opportunities to get a much better picture of whether non-lawyer practice is practical, what parameters are realistic, and whether it is right that the idea will advance access to justice.  There has been a history in some other states of less carefully crafted programs generating horror stories.

The most important parts of the program are as follows:

  • Licensed Legal Technicians must have formal paralegal training, and paralegal job experience,
  • They must have done 20 hours of pro bono within the prior two years,
  • They must take an exam,
  • They must show ability to meet financial responsibilities,
  • They are allowed to:
    • Explain facts and relevancy,
    • Inform the client of procedures and “anticipated course of the legal proceeding,”
    • Provide the client with self-help materials approved by the Board or prepared by a Washington state lawyer
    • Review and explain the other sides documents and exhibits,
    • Select and complete forms approved by various groups,
    • Perform legal research and write legal letters and documents, but only if reviewed by a Washington lawyer,
    • Advise the client about other needed documents,
    • Assist the client in obtaining needed documents,
  • Must have physical street address in Washington State,
  • Must have written contract describing services and fees,
  • CLE is required,
  • Attorney-client privilege and fiduciary duty apply.

The Order carefully makes the argument for the project, effectively answering the many arguments against it.  As such it stands as a clear statement of the need for, and potential advantages of the approach, that should have a significant impact nationally.  The dissent criticizes the unfairness to the Bar, arguing the bar will be burdened with the administrative cost of the program.  Even if accurate, I do not find the argument powerful.  Surely it is shortsighted.  (For debate on the earlier proposal, see the July 2008 Washington State Bar Journal.)

I would urge everyone to keep a very careful eye on this experiment.  There are strong arguments that the current parameters of the legal monopoly are unrealistic — unless that is, the profession moves much faster to find ways of delivering services much more efficiently and therefore cheaply.  Time is running out.

Advertisements

About richardzorza

I am deeply involved in access to justice and the patient voice movement.
This entry was posted in Legal Ethics, Simplification, Systematic Change. Bookmark the permalink.

9 Responses to Important Step Forward with Washington State Legal Technician Rule

  1. Kirk McClain says:

    The positive implications of this new rule is obvious. I am one quarter from getting my paralegal certificate and I am very eager to begin the process of becoming a legal technician. I didn’t go to law school because my son was born the year I took the LSAT and I could not raise him and be a full-time law student at the time. I never followed through and 15 years later I still regret not doing it. I love the legal profession and would have went to my grave regretting that I never went to law school. My hope is that this new rule will be so successful that the scope of what a legal technician can do will expand further out into other areas of law, not just family law.

  2. Pingback: Law Review Article on Washington State Legal Technician Rule | Richard Zorza's Access to Justice Blog

  3. Pingback: Washington Supreme Court Adopts Limited Practice Rule for “Legal Technicians” | ATJ Web

  4. Pingback: California Bar Explores Joining Movement for Non-Lawyer Practice | Richard Zorza's Access to Justice Blog

  5. Pingback: Non-Lawyer Practice — Moving the New York Discussion Forward | Richard Zorza's Access to Justice Blog

  6. Lisa Rush says:

    The Three Geeks and a Law Law blog looks at this rule in combination with the legal process outsourcing industries. The blog post is “Someone Should Introduced Demand to Supply”
    http://www.geeklawblog.com/2012/06/someone-should-introduce-demand-to.html
    In it, Toby Brown writes, “And what do these two things have in common? Both are reactions to the failure of lawyers to meet market needs. LPOs sit at the top of the market. These new “Legal Technicians” will sit at the bottom. …. . ”
    “So at both the top and bottom of the legal market, non-lawyers are filling needs. Meanwhile lawyers can’t find jobs. What is wrong with this picture?”
    “Lawyers need to embrace a market driven view of the world and focus on meeting the needs of clients. It’s either that or get out of the way and let the market do its thing.”

  7. Pingback: The most important parts … « dtccparalegalprogram

  8. Pingback: Important Step Forward with Washington State Legal Technician Rule | Law Practice Strategy

  9. Pingback: Important Step Forward with Washington State Legal Technician Rule | The Future of Law | Scoop.it

Comments are closed.