Expert Opinions

Many states, including California, are exploring regulatory reform as a means through which to drive innovation in the legal services sector and increase access to justice. The public is rarely involved in these discussions, however, and the critical consumer perspective is missing.

The legal profession is fraught with systemic barriers to entry that form ripple effects on the road to becoming a lawyer. The pathway is much like narrow pipeline—entry is limited and every segment is springing leaks, disproportionately affecting people of color along the way—creating a profession that is among the least diverse in the country.

Dedicated judges, attorneys, and court administrators have the power to establish justice in our modern time. By gathering the input of those who use the court system, who rely on it to decide some of the most important issues in our lives—like divorce and child custody—we help ensure that the courts function in a way that serves all of us.

Judges must be held accountable for conduct that violates their codes of conduct and governing laws. A recent Reuters report on judicial misconduct, while not quite comprehensive, is an important reminder that we need to know more about this topic that is arguably central to public trust and confidence and—more importantly—justice and the rule of law.

After COVID-19 and the social unrest around racial equity, our world will never be the same. We have a duty to ensure that we learn from this season of change and to use the knowledge we have gained to create a better world. To do so, we must be guided by data and evidence—and we must improve our data and research practices.

The public knows the reality of how the justice system functions today. It is we who are now catching on. The call has never been louder for court leaders and system stakeholders to accept and admit some hard truths. It is time that we look inward and take responsibility for those aspects of the system that are failing.

Last month, it was announced that reforms to Canada’s Divorce Act will be delayed due to COVID-19, highlighting just how important it is that courts prepare for this and other types of possible disasters. There are a number of practical steps courts must take now in order to meet people’s needs in a world where going to a physical courthouse is even more difficult—and dangerous.

The California Board of Trustees is meeting today to consider the charter and composition of the Closing the Justice Gap Working Group. We at IAALS applaud the board for creating the working group and committing to move forward with important and innovative legal services solutions, but we strongly encourage them to significantly diversify its membership.

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.

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.

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.