Unlocking Legal Regulation

On June 25, IAALS and the University of Denver Sturm College of Law co-hosted a virtual discussion with William Henderson, law professor and an ABA Journal Legal Rebel, who laid out how and why the current legal regulatory system is no longer working and why state supreme courts are best positioned to pioneer new regulatory models.

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.

The regulatory reform signal shines brightly over Utah and your help is needed—will you answer the call? The public comment period on Utah's proposals to expand the delivery of legal services is open until Thursday, July 23. It is imperative for all those who are committed to making justice available for all to submit comments in favor of these important advancements.

The legacy of racism that blights our criminal justice system also creates inequities in our society more broadly. IAALS joins others in this process of listening, reflecting, and recommitting ourselves to the goals of equity and inclusion, because they are central to our vision of a justice system that works for all people.

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.

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.

New Mexico is one of the latest states to look to regulatory innovation to increase access to legal services. On January 24, the state supreme court approved a number of recommendations, including enlisting nonlawyer court navigators to assist self-represented litigants in navigating the system. 

Imagine a legal sector neatly divided into two groups: the Rule Makers and the Risk Takers. With evidence piling up that the legal market is not working for ordinary citizens, the Rule Makers come together to evaluate possible changes. After the new rules are enacted, the burden shifts to the Risk Takers to build out workable solutions.

On February 13, the Arizona Task Force on the Delivery of Legal Services filed a petition with the Arizona Supreme Court to eliminate Ethical Rule 5.4. Instead, the petition requests that the court adopt a framework for regulating what’s known as an alternative business structure.

From my perspective as the director of a law school innovation lab, legal education is disengaged from the regulatory reform effort: only a handful of legal academics have chimed in on regulatory reform or been involved in task force efforts. But legal education should join the conversation and prepare for the changes ahead, for several reasons.