California

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.

Earlier this month, IAALS submitted several comments in support of a proposed paraprofessional licensing program in California. Under the proposed plan, paraprofessionals would be thoroughly qualified for the job by completing the rigorous requirements for licensure. IAALS refutes the assertion that paraprofessionals would pose a risk to consumers.

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.

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 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.

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. 

On Thursday, March 12, the State Bar of California Trustees voted to postpone passing the motion to explore the development of a regulatory sandbox to May. In my eyes, every day, hour, or minute of delay leads to bad legal outcomes for Californians. Our legal system is in crisis. Now, as a community, we have to turn our kinetic access-to-justice energy into focused action.

Changes in recent years to California’s budget, priorities, and policies have resulted in a focus on criminal over civil matters. In the yearly State of the Judiciary address, however, California Supreme Court Chief Justice Tani G. Cantil-Sakauye highlighted some of the ways California is planning to improve access to justice in its courts. Among them: better meeting the needs of self-represented litigants.

Over the last three years, California has undertaken an effort to “research and analyze innovative proposals for the justice system of the future.” The work has culminated in a final report that was submitted to the Chief Justice on April 26, 2017. The report from the Commission on the Future of California’s Court System focuses on practical ways to more effectively adjudicate cases, achieve greater fiscal stability, and use technology to enhance the public’s access to the courts. The breadth of the report is tremendous, making sweeping recommendations in criminal law, civil law, family law, court administration, and technology.