Expert Opinions

The State Bar of California’s foray into legal regulatory innovation has a relatively long history, yet its progress will be halted and disregarded unless Governor Newsom stands up to special-interest attorney groups.

A growing number of states are exploring the permanent implementation of alternative licensure approaches that would allow law school graduates to obtain their license through nontraditional avenues that run adjacent to—or bypass entirely—the bar exam.

In May 2022, the Minnesota Supreme Court hosted a public hearing on several recommendations to improve the state's Legal Paraprofessional Pilot Project. Speakers in favor and opposition of the recommendations came together for constructive dialogue on tangible ways to improve the program and, ultimately, increase access to legal services.

Over the past several years, IAALS has designed resources to improve legal education and legal hiring; challenged the legal community to examine its licensure practices; and promoted a justice system that meets the demands of everyday people by clearing regulatory obstacles to innovation, development, and collaboration. And this work is just getting started.

This comment was submitted to the State Bar of California in support of the proposed Paraprofessional Program, which would authorize paraprofessionals to provide legal advice in areas such as family, consumer debt, landlord/tenant, employment/income, and collateral criminal cases, as well as represent parties in court (excluding jury trials).

Lawmakers in California recently spoke out against the state bar's exploration of regulatory reform as a means to address the access-to-justice crisis. However, the need for efficient and affordable legal services is growing exponentially—and data suggests that legal services innovation could a key part of the solution.

Throughout 2020, we saw just about every aspect of the legal profession move from in-person to virtual services. There have been a number of horror stories but also plenty of success stories, in which technology helped decrease court backlogs and increased access to the courts. So where does this leave us, and how do we move forward?

From conversations with legal reformers in many states, the idea of establishing a regulatory sandbox seems extreme. The reality is, though, that these initiatives are not as aggressive as they might seem—and in fact, state courts have been using similar reform tools for a very long time.

IAALS and HiiL have released the results of our US Justice Needs study, providing data on the justice problems Americans experience and the ways they seek to resolve them. Now that we know what people need help with most, we can begin to chart a new path forward to improve our justice system nationwide.

Lawyer development is a single continuum that starts even before the first day of law school, and continues past the point when a lawyer has become an independent, confident, and proficient professional. Until we recognize this fact, we will continue to struggle to develop lawyers properly.

The goal of any licensure process should be to make sure the public is protected from incompetence without serving as an artificial barrier to people entering the legal profession. Indeed, this is precisely what the bar exam purports to do. But does the bar exam actually do those things?

We’re researchers who study legal services regulation and access to the civil justice system. We’ve been thrilled to watch groundbreaking announcements from the West ignite a wide-ranging national debate about how best to regulate legal training, services, and businesses—and we’ve been paying special attention to the role people who are not lawyers are playing in the process of legal re-regulation.