Unbundling Legal Services

It is arguably still the case that technology solutions alone, completely independent of human involvement, cannot yet provide most clients with legal advice and representation (although one cannot ignore that this possibility is on the horizon, however distant). For now, though, technology providers are playing an essential role in expanding unbundled services by facilitating connections between clients and legal services providers. Online legal marketplaces and matching platforms (like Avvo, Legal Zoom, UpCounsel, etc.), legal insurance plans (like those offered by ARAG and LegalShield), and other direct-to-consumer legal technology providers are facilitating client-attorney connection on a scale not possible by solo and small firm marketing efforts. While the business models vary across these providers, access to attorneys delivering unbundled legal services is at the core of many of them. And these platforms are doing more than just connecting attorneys with clients, they are familiarizing customers with these alternative approaches to legal services delivery.

Business-to-business technology providers are also facilitating implementation of the unbundled model by creating efficiencies on the practice side which, in turn, make an unbundled model more accessible (and potentially lucrative) for practitioners. Document assembly and automation, user-friendly client portals, attorney-client communication tools, calendaring functions, and other features are creating an efficient structure for delivering discrete task legal services. Additionally, AI-powered tools are increasingly becoming part of law practices, offering opportunities for redefining legal services and streamlining client engagement. There is an opportunity here for younger, more technologically savvy attorneys to mentor and train new and established attorneys alike on the technological aspects of streamlining an unbundled practice.

In states where unbundling is successfully spreading, there is a symbiotic relationship between court system support for the model and attorney willingness to implement the model. Natural partnerships between the legal profession and court stakeholders can grow this support:

• While courts cannot give self-represented litigants advice (or demand they engage the services of an attorney), court staff and judges can educate litigants on the existence of the unbundled model, which in turn may facilitate the model’s usage and provide litigants with the tools to help them decide if unbundling is appropriate for them.
• In addition to educating litigants about the existence of affordable legal services options, courts—in partnership with bar associations—can offer litigants a vetted list of attorney providers who offer unbundled legal services, making this list available at court self-help centers and online.
• Jointly hosting continuing legal education and judicial education programs with bar leaders can help demonstrate the judiciary’s commitment to unbundling as a model.
• Law libraries exist as an important but sometimes overlooked intersection between attorneys, court staff, judges, and self-represented litigants. Litigants often turn to law libraries for help, especially in the absence of a dedicated self-help center or website. Law libraries can also facilitate the spread of information and authorized referral lists of unbundled practitioners.

Partnerships with community organizations can facilitate the connection between legal services providers and potential clients. Healthcare facilities, immigration clinics, veterans’ organizations, and other community partners can provide natural sites for attorney-client partnerships in various substantive legal areas that lend themselves to an unbundled model. Law schools and legal clinics can serve these specific, discrete community needs while also training law students on the practice. Large law firm pro bono initiatives are also well-positioned to develop and staff these relationships, providing new attorneys with an opportunity to gain experience directly serving in-need clients through discrete task representation.

In states just beginning or otherwise in the early stages of embracing the practice, there are a number of foundational elements that should be in place to support the success of the unbundling model:

• Changing Rules & Regulations: A precursor to any strategic plan for promoting unbundling is implementing the appropriate regulatory infrastructure to support the practice. Rules of professional conduct, rules of civil procedure, and other policies should be amended to explicitly authorize the limited scope representation model and the attendant legal services and activities.
• Framing the Need: The underlying principles supporting unbundling and other alternatives to the traditional legal services delivery model are rooted in access to justice. Framing the importance of and urgency behind unbundled services in this context provides a meaningful motivation for rule makers and regulators to get behind the model.
• Understanding Constituent & Community Needs: Each jurisdiction is unique in the legal issues and needs prevalent among community members. Understanding the demographics of one’s community and how access to justice issues manifest among community members can help unbundled practitioners better define services.

States with the regulatory infrastructure and stakeholder support system in place still frequently encounter challenges with attorney implementation and adoption of the unbundled model. Supply-side solutions to increase the number of attorneys who offer unbundled legal services include the following:

• Attorney Education & Training: In many jurisdictions, running an unbundled practice is not something lawyers will have covered in law school. The impetus is therefore on state and local bar associations to develop CLE programming on unbundling for practitioners that both educates them on how to implement the practice and also allays concerns over offering these services.
• Broader Recruiting Programs: Early attorney adopters will proactively seek and take advantage of CLE programs on unbundling; these early adopters will also be creative and active in serving the legal needs of their communities. But CLEs serve another function beyond training those who have already bought in and that is messaging to skeptics and late adopters about the promise of an unbundled practice.
• Business Model Messaging: In addition to providing training tools to attorneys interested in implementing unbundling into their law practice, it is important to message to attorneys that this is a viable business model. CLE programs can satisfy this function, as can informal or formal mentorship programs that leverage the experience and expertise (and energy) of established, respected unbundled practitioners.

Jurisdictions where unbundling is becoming or already is an established fixture in legal communities still experience implementation challenges, particularly with respect to generating public attention and client demand. These demand-side issues often manifest themselves in the difficulty attorneys face finding clients and the difficulty potential clients face learning about and understanding the model. No matter how available or affordable a legal solution might be, public education about non-traditional service models can be an uphill battle—especially given the widespread familiarity with traditional models and the often-voiced criticism of those models’ cost.

Many strategic plans from running-stage states include extensive strategies for connecting with the public that heavily leverage technology tools and collaboration with justice system and community partners:

• Referral Pipelines: Bar association-developed and appropriately vetted lists of unbundled attorneys can reach clients in greater numbers when distributed through the courts. Similarly, referral pipelines from legal aid organizations, court-based educational programs, and public law libraries can help these providers direct in-need clients to affordable legal solutions.
• Outreach to Community Organizations: There was a clear appreciation among conference participants identifying with states in the running stage that the burden is on attorneys to meet clients where they are. Practitioners in these states reported expanding their reach beyond obvious client sources, connecting with religious institutions, libraries, rural communities, etc.
• Robust Public Education: Educating the public about changes in the delivery of legal services is a foundational prerequisite to attracting client attention and business. Advertising is a growing tool for unbundled practitioners and leveraging publicity around celebrity legal events and other relevant news stories, to the extent these opportunities exist, might potentially bring what are otherwise internal industry conversations into the mainstream.
• Refining & Expanding Messaging: Talking to the public about unbundled legal services is a much different exercise than talking to the legal community about the model. Messaging to the public about the importance of affordable legal services and the availability of new service delivery models should focus on how these issues directly impact people’s lives.

Strategic plans for running states also leverage court partnerships to change the way unbundled attorneys and their clients interface with court processes:

• Develop streamlined court processes that create both efficiencies for self-represented litigants and opportunities for unbundled practitioners to participate in the process.
• Give judges more flexibility to pause proceedings so self-represented litigants can consult with an unbundled attorney (and resume the process in a timely manner thereafter).
• Change hearing setting models to frontload cases with self-represented litigants, providing attorneys with an opportunity to potentially connect with potential clients on discrete issues.

Finally, in jurisdictions where unbundling is becoming or is already commonplace among attorneys, discussions are had around how to redefine legal services and approaches to service delivery. When the various components of a full-service representation model are broken down into their discrete parts, new ways of messaging about these tasks emerge—both in terms of defining the scope of the service and in justifying the value to clients:

• Giving advice is central to any attorney’s service model. For unbundled practitioners, there is an explicit agreement regarding the advice that is given. This strengthens attorney-client communications and creates a level of acknowledgement that is often understated (or lost entirely) in full-service representation arrangements. As a result, this explicit communication may provide clients with a more tangible understanding of the service for which they are paying.
• Coaching—where a lawyer provides behind-the-scenes guidance to a client—is another function implicitly built into many full-service representation models. The University of Windsor Faculty of Law is redesigning some of these coach-like functions (and pairing them with important non-legal skills) into a separate client service. Law students in the first-of-its-kind program in North America are being trained in this new role through a Self-Represented Litigants Conflict Coaching class.
• The value of certain soft skills in legal services delivery is sometimes overlooked. But in high emotion case types like divorce, for example, a thoughtful attorney can minimize some of the emotional stress associated with the process. Not traditionally advertised alongside attorney services and credentials, an unbundled practitioner might frame this role as a service in and of itself.
• Preventive legal wellness services and legal checkup programs are growing in popularity, creating forward-looking opportunities for assisting clients, as opposed to limiting services to those that are reactive in nature.

Many people are unable to afford a lawyer for the entirety of their case and often pursue self-representation as a result. In both civil and family law, over 70 percent of cases have at least one party that is self-represented. And in some parts of the country, over 90 percent of eviction and debt collection cases involve a defendant representing themselves without a lawyer. Unfortunately, no matter how smart or educated one is, navigating a legal case without a lawyer can be extremely confusing and time-consuming, not to mention it can negatively affect the outcome of a case.

Many courts have created avenues to help self-represented litigants, by providing self-help materials and working with attorneys to provide 30 minutes to an hour of free legal advice at the courthouse. But even with these resources, many self-represented litigants struggle to navigate their case. There is another avenue though that most people are unaware of, one where they can receive help from a lawyer at a more affordable cost. This is called unbundled legal services and lawyers are more routinely providing this option.

Typically, lawyers work on a case from beginning to end. A lawyer providing unbundled legal services works on and charges for only the legal tasks that they agree to in advance, often based on what their clients can afford and need help with the most. Unbundled legal services are becoming a more popular and less expensive way to help people who cannot afford to hire a lawyer for the entirety of their case.

What can a lawyer providing unbundled legal services do?

Examples include:

• Write your petition or response, that you can then file on your own.
• Write the letters and other legal documents that are needed for your case.
• Review settlement agreements.
• Represent you in court.

How can unbundled legal services help the dispute resolution process?

Dispute resolution processes, such as mediation or parenting coordination (in a divorce or separation case), are designed to help people resolve their conflicts outside of the courtroom. This can be a better option than having a judge make a decision because they do not know each person’s unique situation as well as the person themselves. Although this process avoids the courtroom, it can still be difficult to navigate alone. A lawyer providing unbundled legal services can help their client understand the following:

• The rules of the dispute resolution process.
• The role of the mediator or facilitator.
• How to prepare for the process.
• Whether the process is confidential.
• How an agreement can become a court settlement.
• What happens if you do not reach an agreement.
• Any documents or information you will need.
• The issues that you will discuss.
• How much time you will have to explain your concerns.
• How to present yourself during the process.

What are some of the challenges of unbundled legal services?

Unbundled legal services are not for everyone. It is important for people considering this approach to think about whether unbundled legal services can work for them and their case. Some questions to ask include:

• Can my case be broken down into small steps, easily divided between me and my lawyer?
• Are there complicated issues that cannot easily be split between me and my lawyer?
• Are there important deadlines approaching that I am not able to meet?

The more complicated a case is, the harder it might be to divide into separate parts. As one decides whether to use unbundled legal services, they should think about and talk with the lawyers they might hire about how unbundled services can work in their case.

How to find unbundled legal services.

Be sure to ask about unbundled legal services when you reach out to a lawyer, and download our consumer guide and refer to it when you are talking with lawyers about your legal matter.

To find out more about how unbundled legal services work in your area, contact your local self-help center.

To learn more about unbundled legal services, go to the Self-Represented Litigation Network.

Data suggests there is a vast untapped legal market. Over 70 percent of family and civil cases have at least one self-represented party, with financial reasons being one of the strongest motivating factors. According to a 2011 public opinion poll by the American Bar Association, while 70 percent of people surveyed were initially unfamiliar with unbundling, two-thirds were interested in talking with a lawyer after they learned about it.

There are growing opportunities to launch an unbundled practice. Additionally, there are new legal services providers coming into this space. Over the past few years, states have begun creating new categories of providers: allied legal professionals who are authorized to provide limited legal advice and services across certain case types, often including family law. These allied legal professionals are by their very nature providing unbundled legal services.

What follows are some considerations for steps to take in establishing an unbundled practice.

Launching an Unbundled Practice:

• In terms of defining the scope of an unbundled practice, begin by considering the whole-picture perspective of serving a client, parsing out from there the tasks that are particularly high-impact for potential clients or aligned with personal specializations and training.
  • In family law, for example, consider every legal service provided throughout the life of a divorce case, and then pull from that list the most important or difficult services you feel would most benefit a client if an attorney handled—legal advice, document preparation such as the financial declaration, limited court appearances, etc.
• Decide at the outset what, if any, services will not be offered to unbundled clients, such as formally entering an appearance in a case or representing a client at court hearings.
• Case handling can be broken down into phases or chunks from which determinations can be made as to whether the attorney or the client will handle each task.
• Develop processes for screening client and case suitability for an unbundled arrangement.
  • Factors to consider include case type, complexity of issues, hearing/trial requirements, opposing party representation status, etc.
  • Client characteristics are also very important in determining suitability: for example, the presence of domestic violence or other significant power imbalance that would affect a client’s ability to perform their tasks under the agreement, client sophistication to understand the limitations of the unbundling agreement and perform their role under that agreement, etc.
• Understand how to convert an unbundled arrangement into a broader scope arrangement—and what documentation is necessary to do so.
• Develop a repository of appropriate forms to reference, including screening checklists, special retainer agreements, form documents, and other materials that can streamline the process.

Pricing Unbundled Services:

• It is beneficial to assign a price to each unbundled task, particularly since price transparency is important to potential clients who are seeking affordable legal services.

The Chicago Bar Foundation Pricing Toolkit provides advice on value-based pricing and is a good resource for attorneys unsure about how much to charge for specific tasks. Other firms’ and organizations’ unbundled pricing models can also be instructive to an attorney setting prices to services.

AltFee supplies law firms with a systemized approach to pricing and provides analysis of internal data trends in order to scope and price unbundled and other non-hourly services without having to charge by the hour. The software also equips attorneys to collaborate with mentors and colleagues for better legal pricing.

• With unbundled services, it is easy to be scalable and flexible:
  • A legal services provider can provide flat fees for discrete tasks or chunks of a case and still charge hourly rates for other tasks, such as for trial representation.
  • Tasks can be offered à la carte, so the client can pick and choose which services they want help with based on their needs and financial situation.
  • Unbundled practitioners can also experiment with subscription models, with the client paying monthly depending on the level of attorney involvement and services rendered.

Integrating Technology into an Unbundled Practice:

• Integration of technology into an unbundled law practice only makes sense if the resulting products and services solve an existing problem, whether for the provider or the consumer.
• The most widely used legal technologies are well-known tools like Microsoft Word, Gmail, Zoom, MailChimp, WordPress, Adobe, etc. While simple, they can radically streamline an unbundled practice. For example:
  • Adobe allows users to easily create fillable forms, enable fields for e-signatures, and add a submit button so clients can easily send forms back once they are done. These are just a few of the tools Adobe provides that attorneys can use to simplify creating and using forms with clients.
  • WordPress can help attorneys understand what topics and services people are most interested in by gathering statistics about the search engine keywords used to find the webpage and the links they click on when on the webpage. Additionally, WordPress can be used to automatically share content from a website to social media, such as blog posts.
• Assess the feasibility of building an unbundled product alongside the value expected from the product. This assessment exists along a spectrum—the more feasible the build, the less value the product must return.
• Small, repetitive tasks are often low-hanging fruit for productization in an unbundled practice. The following questions can help identify these opportunities:
  • What standard information are you passing along to every client?
  • What client questions do you find yourself answering repeatedly?
  • What repeat issues are you trying to fix?
• Automating forms is an easy, low-cost way to attract prospective clients or otherwise assist consumers without an attorney.

Lester Law offers a variety of options for navigating a divorce or establishing a custody plan. Consumers can receive help with a specific step in the process, from drafting a document to having representation at a hearing. Consumers can also navigate the entire process without an attorney through the firm’s LawGuides service: a step-by-step guide for starting and completing a divorce in Colorado.

Hello Divorce is an online platform that helps people manage and complete their divorce in a number of states. It integrates automated forms with legal information, wellness support, strategy, and unbundled legal coaching to empower clients to navigate the divorce process on their terms. Clients have the ability to choose between four different plans, one of which is completely Do-It-Yourself. The other three plans involve differing levels of unbundled attorney involvement, from proofreading and filing to mediation services.

• In developing an unbundled product, it can be useful to identify the first step that can be achieved in a minimal amount of time to launch something that adds value. From that point, consumer feedback can be gathered and the tool improved.
• The proliferation of no-code tools (for example, Afterpattern) is empowering non-technical providers to create their own software and apps, and these can be very helpful to unbundled practitioners.

Marketing Unbundled Services:

• The term “unbundled legal services” means little to a lay person, so using phrases in ad copy like “customized client services” can catch consumer attention in a clear and direct way.
• Unbundled legal services providers can provide the consumer with information about the service delivery model, so clients can educate themselves about how this model is different from full-service representation.

IAALS and the Association of Family and Conciliation Courts developed a Consumer Guide to unbundling that explains what unbundled legal services are, what an unbundled lawyer does, and how it works in a legal process.

• Unbundled practitioners can partner with local and state bar associations to be included in lists of providers that are willing to provide limited scope services.

Ethics Considerations:

Lawyers and allied legal professionals who are interested in offering limited scope representation are sometimes reluctant to proceed due to a concern over potential ethics violations. As is always the case, an unbundled lawyer must consult and comply with the Rules of Professional Conduct. The focus with this practice model is centered on how to effectively limit the scope of representation and document the parameters of the representation.

Limitations on Scope & Informed Consent

• Rule 1.2(c) authorizes an attorney to limit the scope of the representation if the “limitation is reasonable under the circumstances and the client gives informed consent.”
• This determination goes beyond competency to take on the matter. An unbundled practitioner should consider the client’s capabilities—factors like tech competence, prior experience with the legal system, temperament (if negotiating with the other party), language capability, etc.

Communication & Documentation

• Every service that an attorney plans to complete for the client must be discussed in detail and memorialized in writing.
• Services that the attorney will not provide should also be discussed and memorialized in writing. This is vital because while it is permissible to limit scope, an attorney cannot limit their advice. Part of this advice includes explaining to a client the ramifications of not completing a task over which the client has responsibility.
• Another key piece of information that must be thoroughly explained is the point at which the lawyer’s work will be considered complete.
• An attorney is obligated under Rule 1.4 to keep the client reasonably informed about the progress of the work throughout the representation. This includes when the attorney has finished the work detailed in the agreement. It is often wise to confirm this through a disengagement letter or some other type of documentation.
• To avoid miscommunication and liability issues that may arise, it is important for unbundled practitioners to have established internal policies for documentation—potentially even practices that go beyond the jurisdiction’s professional conduct rules.

Courts are on the front line of the growing numbers of self-represented civil and family court litigants. Difficulties navigating the process, problems completing and filing forms, and challenges navigating hearings and trial all impact court staff and judges in terms of time, efficiency, and—in some instances—case outcome. Court systems stand to benefit greatly from an increase in attorney participation in appropriate cases, and there are things judicial system stakeholders can do to support the unbundled practice model:

• Familiarize judges and court staff with the unbundled model.
  • For example, see the Illinois Judicial Branch Bench Card on unbundling.
• Educate litigants about the unbundled model, including how to access these services and how to assess whether these services are appropriate given a client’s particular needs and situation.
  • See IAALS' Guide for Consumers as an example handout for self-represented litigants who seek legal assistance at self-help centers in court.
• Engage court leadership in encouraging rulemakers to support the unbundled model and encouraging area attorneys to adopt the model. This might take the form of process and procedure modifications that can facilitate client representation through an unbundled model. Informal and expedited domestic relations trials, for example, provide an opportunity for limited scope attorney engagement, while also expediting divorce case processing and freeing judicial time for high-conflict or high-touch cases.
  • Oregon and Alaska both have informal domestic relations trials that can serve as examples for other courts.
• Provide legal practitioners with guidance on key issues related to offering unbundled trial services, perhaps making available standard, court-approved forms for entry of limited appearance, withdrawal from representation, etc.
  • For example, Illinois has several sample forms available, including a Notice of Limited Scope Appearance and a Limited Scope Representation Agreement.
• Promote programs that bring unbundled legal services into the courthouse, whether as part of legal aid efforts or partnerships with the private bar.
  • For examples, see Kansas Legal Services and Coordinated Advice and Referral Program for Legal Services (CARPLS) in Illinois.

Clear rules of professional responsibility and civil procedure are the foundation for encouraging the adoption and spread of unbundling as a viable legal services delivery model. There are many existing models for rules amendments, including Rules 1.2(c) and 6.5 of the ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct, which a number of states have implemented in identical or similar form. But even the best rules do not guarantee that lawyers will offer unbundled services or that clients will know to ask for unbundled services. Rulemakers and regulatory bodies can help bridge this implementation gap in a number of ways to support practitioners who want to offer clients unbundled services:

• Develop additional explanatory comments and materials to accompany ethics rules, with guidance for practitioners.
  • For example, Michigan Rules of Professional Conduct 1.2(b) states that a lawyer may limit their scope of representation. Rules 1.2(b)(1)-(2) further explain that a lawyer may draft or partially draft pleadings and is not required to sign the pleading or identify themselves, but the pleading must include specific language that it was drafted with the assistance of a lawyer. Further, the Comment section of Rule 1.2 provides specific examples of appropriate limited representation.
• Support the creation and widespread dissemination of toolkits and other instructional materials for attorneys on how to unbundle services ethically and efficiently.
• Publish articles and other official statements authored by regulators and bar leaders, to provide reassurance that the unbundled model is both authorized and encouraged.
  • For example, California judge Mark A. Juhas wrote an article published in the California Bar Journal highlighting the many benefits of limited scope representation. He not only confirms that limited scope representation is permitted, but he states that “judicial officers statewide enthusiastically welcome [it].”
• Educate malpractice carriers on the unbundled model and assure them that this model is not only authorized by professional regulatory authorities but encouraged.
• Encourage carriers to explicitly include unbundled legal services as a covered activity in their informational and advertising materials.
• Rethink common perceptions of what it means to protect clients. Because there is an ongoing access to justice crisis where clients need attorneys but cannot afford them, regulators cannot focus solely on how to protect clients from harm when they do hire an attorney and ignore the harm that occurs when a client who needs an attorney cannot hire one.

Courts and legal providers are increasingly adopting a customer-centric approach to serving justice system users, and this focus should similarly be built into efforts to reframe legal education. Information on unbundled models (including how to operate an unbundled practice) should be included in law school curriculum. There are several opportunities for modifying law school curriculum:

• Expose law students to a variety of practice models and law practice options, including the unbundling model.
• Teach skills associated with a law practice (including an unbundled practice) in addition to legal reasoning and analysis.
• Parse out and train students on the discrete tasks that might comprise an unbundled practice: advising, mediation, document assembly, coaching before trial, etc.
• Integrate education on law practice and legal service delivery models into professional responsibility and ethics courses, and test students on commonly encountered or anticipated issues.
• Ensure diversity in faculty law practice experience to facilitate student exposure to a variety of practice types and diverse client needs.