Unauthorized practice of law rules grant lawyers a monopoly on providing legal advice and prevent “nonlawyers” from providing any meaningful legal assistance. This mindset codified in the UPL rules, along with our country’s staggering racial wealth gap, have a chilling effect on Black Americans' access to the legal system.

Professional ethics rules have long prevented judges from speaking about their rulings and opinions. However, beginning next month, California state judges will be able to comment directly on pending cases—their own or those of a judicial colleague—in connection with a judicial election or recall campaign.

IAALS has released a new report that reveals valuable insights into how the public views court systems and processes, judges and the judiciary, and information about the legal system. The report is the culmination of IAALS' two-year project on public trust and confidence in the courts.

Earlier this month, the Civil Justice Council in England and Wales published a report on the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on civil court users. The report includes results from the council's rapid review of remote hearings, which was conducted to assess what is and isn’t working, as well as how to best move forward.

As the whole country grapples with reopening, our federal courts continue their own efforts to respond in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic. In recent weeks, we are seeing some federal courthouses slowly expand in-person proceedings as the judiciary also explores reconstituting jury trials.

My recent experience with the civil justice system—even pre-COVID-19—has been frustrating, to say the least. Through it all, though, my journey through the system has given me a more personal perspective on the importance of our work at IAALS and helping the real users of our system—like me—have better and more efficient access to justice.

The Independent Review of Legal Services Regulation has published its final report, which is designed to assist the government in assessing the current regulatory framework for legal services in England and Wales and contribute to the momentum around new frameworks for regulation.

Courts are faced with the task of balancing the public’s need for an efficient justice system with everyone’s health and safety during the COVID-19 pandemic. Online dispute resolution, along with a host of other approaches, will likely play a role in tackling the post-pandemic demand for legal services.

Earlier this year, Law School Transparency published LST's 2025 Vision: A Modern Blueprint for Change. The report outlines plans and proposals for law schools to become more accessible, affordable, and innovative, including an alternative to the U.S. News rankings as well as updated standards for accreditation.

While the pandemic's disruption increases the need for systemic improvements, it also offers a distinct opportunity to achieve them. As we respond to COVID-19, we should learn from the new efforts underway and work to make long-term, fundamental changes. Let’s seize this opportunity to make the changes we need to provide justice we can believe in.

This month, The Pew Charitable Trusts released a new report that looks at trends in debt collection lawsuits in the United States and suggests steps that courts can take to modernize our state civil justice system and ensure access to justice. The economic impacts of the pandemic make these recommendations all the more critical and timely.

Last year, IAALS surveyed members of the American Board of Trial Advocates about their trust and confidence in the legal system and factors that influence their perspectives. A substantial majority of respondents reported high levels of confidence in both the state and federal court systems, but others gave us reasons for their declining confidence.