Washington State Bar Association to appeal ending of LLLTs

The Washington State Bar Association is set to seek review of the state Supreme Court’s decision to end the limited licence legal technician (LLLT) program in the state. At the LLLT board meeting on June the 8th the board decided to request the Supreme court review the decision or at least provide longer for those currently training to complete their licensing requirements.

The review comes in the wake of the June 5th decision by the Supreme Court to “sunset” the LLLT program. The court felt that the costs were too high for the limited participation in the program, and ruled that all those aiming to become licensed must do so by 31st July 2021.

The LLLT program is the first of its kind in the USA and is aimed to help provide affordable legal services to the broader population in the state. LLLTs are licensed by the Washington Supreme Court to advise and assist people going through a divorce, child custody, and other family law matters, the aim had been to expand these practice areas. LLLTs consult with and advise clients, complete and file necessary court documents, assist pro se clients at certain types of hearings, and advise and participate in mediation, arbitration, and settlement conferences.

The Bar Association has requested that anyone who wishes to contact the Supreme Court about the decision should email  supreme@courts.wa.gov.

See the Bar Association’s comments.

See the Supreme Court’s letter announcing the decision (PDF).

See Justice Madsen’s dissenting opinion on the decision (PDF).

 

 

0

New Zealand Law Society – consultation on access to justice report

On the 14th May 2020, the New Zealand Law Society released the draft research report: ‘Access to Justice – a stocktake of initiatives’. The goal of the report is to assist the Law Society in taking a people-centred approach and to better understand the legal system from a consumer perspective. The Society hopes to bring in innovative and new thinking, to improve access to justice in New Zealand.

Law Society President, Tiana Epati, notes that “Our aim is to build a picture of the range of access to justice initiatives across Aotearoa New Zealand and to engage with stakeholders to better understand that broader landscape. Alongside this, we are also building a fuller picture of international initiatives.”

Consultation on the draft report is open from now until 3 August. Any questions or comments can be directed to accesstojustice@lawsociety.org.nz. A copy of the report is available as a PDF.

 

0

More regulatory responses to COVID-19

Following on from last month’s newsletter, we’ve put together the following list to examine different regulator responses to the COVID-19 pandemic. Here it is interesting to note the development and changes, as regulators begin to get a grasp on the crisis and develop innovative responses to meet the changing environment. If you have any questions or best practice for the rest of the ICLR community, please do get in touch, and we will be happy to include any of these in the next newsletter.

Illinois has introduced executive order 2020-14, this satisfies notarial requirements that a person must “appear before” a notary public if a two-way audio-video connection is used. It also allows documents to be witnessed through the same technology.


The Law Society of New South Wales has decided to run it’s annual Law Careers Fair as an online event, rather than cancelling it. The event will use zoom to create virtual presentations, with individual video booths and company landing pages replacing exhibitor booths. More information about the event is available here. The Society has also decided to reduce its $410 membership fee to $10, for the 2020-2021 period, allowing members to redirect funds to priority areas during the crisis.


The Law Society of Hong Kong has announced that civil hearing will take place remotely, with all other non-essential court hearings currently adjourned.


The Legal Sector Affinity Group which is made up of all the legal supervisory authorities in the UK, including the Law Society, Bar Council, CILEx, and the Law Society of Scotland, has released an advisory note on preventing money laundering during the crisis. The note discussed the increased risk of money laundering at the current time and what checks can be put in place to mitigate this.


The Council for Licensed Conveyancers in England and Wales is to allow members to defer fee payments, following the near-complete standstill in the UK property market. Members will be given the option to defer paying their practice fee and compensation fund contributions for April, May and June, which can be paid off over the following 4-12 months.


The California State Bar Board of Trustees has written to the California Supreme Court offering options and recommendations for the June First-Year Law Students’ Exam and the July Bar Exam. Full letter available here. Whilst the State Bar of Califonia has put in place emergency measures waiving late payment fees, as well as extending payment deadlines for membership fees and compliance deadlines.


The Law Society of Ontario has cancelled the lawyer licensing examinations and the call to the bar ceremonies due to take place in June. The society has said that alternative summer/autumn examination dates are being explored and that the administrative aspect of the call to the bar process is being undertaken remotely, allowing students to progress with their careers, with a celebration planned later in the year.


The Law Society of Saskatchewan and the Law Society of Alberta have temporarily reduced the articling requirements to a minimum of 8 months, instead of the previous minimum of 12 months, preventing a backlog of articling students due to limits created by coronavirus. Full statements available here and here. The Law Society of Alberta has also introduced changes allowing articling students to work remotely, as well as giving instructions on the supervision students doing this.


The American Bar Association has created a “Task Force on Legal Needs Arising Out of the 2020 Pandemic”, which launched a website on the 3rd of April to provide resources and information on the ongoing crisis and how this relates to the law. Statement available here, website available here. The ABA has also backed calls to adopt emergency rules that would allow recent and upcoming law school graduates who cannot take a bar exam because of the COVID-19 pandemic to engage in the limited practice of law, under the supervision of a licensed attorney, these individuals would have until the end of 2021 to practice without passing the bar exam. They hope this would limit the disruption to students careers, and help prevent the widening of the access to justice gap.  Full statement available here.

0

Arizona set to become first state to allow ABSs

Arizona has become the first state in the US to formally file for the introduction of Alternative Business Structures (ABSs) in the US. The Arizona task force on the delivery of legal services has filed a petition with the Arizona Supreme Court which suggests eliminating rules which prevent fee sharing with non-lawyers and entering into a partnership with non-lawyers.

The petition is quoted as saying “Eliminating the rule would mean, for example, that a professional nonlawyer administrator in a law firm could have an ownership interest or that a Fortune 500 company could be a passive investor. It also could mean that a law firm could attract nonlawyer talent… by providing equity in the firm”.

The petition has also suggested introducing limited license legal practitioners to the state, filling a gap for lower-cost legal services and helping to bridge the justice gap in the state.

0

Notes on the Westminster Legal Policy Forum keynote seminar – 25th February 2020

This ICLR special report has been compiled to give members a flavour of what was discussed during the annual Westminster Legal Policy Forum, held on the 25th February 2020. The theme of the day was ‘regulation, consumer protection and responding to innovation’, with speakers drawn from across regulators, representative bodies, academia and the legal services sector from across England and Wales. Further information about upcoming Westminster Legal Policy forum events, as well as publications from the forum, are available here.

The Independent Review of Legal Services Regulation – key issues to be addressed

Professor Stephen Mayson, Centre for Ethics and Law, University College London and Lead, Independent Review of Legal Services Regulation

The day began with a keynote speech by Professor Stephen Mayson outlining the progress of his hotly anticipated recommendations on legal services regulation. Professor Mayson took the opportunity to address some of the key issues that had arisen during the course of his research. Professor Mayson stressed that his report was written with the consumer as the primary concern, saying that given the scale of unmet legal need across England and Wales, it had become increasingly clear, both that the changes he will propose will be too radical to be achieved within the Legal Services Act 2007 (LSA) and that he increasingly views reform as something that will need to take place sooner rather than later.

Professor Mayson raised four key issues that he has identified under the current regime:

  1.  The vulnerable – Professor Mayson highlighted the vast level of unmet legal need in the country, saying that the law is too complex and too important for the level of access available. Professor Mayson also criticised the “unprincipled” nature dichotomy of high barriers to entry to deliver reserved legal activities, which are treated as essential until a consumer can no longer afford them, at which point the consumer becomes able to self represent.
  2. The dabblers – Professor Mayson also criticised the narrow entry gate to the profession, which allows a wide range of practice. He highlighted the fact that the simultaneous licensing of title and activity allows legal practitioners to hold themselves out as capable of delivering in areas in which they have limited or no competence and experience, leading to a lack of credibility.
  3. Buridan’s ass – Professor Mayson discussed the philosophical concept of Buridan’s ass, in which a donkey placed equidistantly between two piles of food is unable to make a decision as to which one to move towards and starves. He compared this to regulatory reform, suggesting that unless a decision was made on either moving towards risk-based regulation, or some kind of reworking of the existing system then reform would become paralysed by a lack of choice.
  4. The Gordian Knot – Professor Mayson highlighted that his report will raise many questions as to what an independent regulatory system should look like, however, he highlighted that the current system creates the artifice of the approved regulator, which holds an unclear position between being a profession focused representative body and publicly focused regulator. Professor Mayson suggested that the time has come to sever the Gordian knot between the regulatory body and approved regulator.

The full text of Professor Mayson’s speech is available here, with further information about the independent review of legal services available here.

The future of legal services – technology adoption, the changing shape of professional services firms and regulatory development

A lively panel discussion followed the keynotes speech, with panellists providing analysis on what they saw as key issues in the regulation of legal services

Neil Rose, Founder and Editor, Legal Futures – Mr Rose discussed some of the need for reform, pointing out that whilst the current system works well for some, there remain an awful lot of people for whom it doesn’t. Neil pointed out that the attitude in the sector still gravitates towards “we do things this way because this is how it’s always been done”. He raised the idea that the LSA has acted as a catalyst in allowing new businesses to come in and disrupt the sector, pointing out that concerns over compromised standards have not been fulfilled. Neil also pointed towards the new Solicitors qualifying exam suggesting that it could lead to seismic changes in the profession. He also pointed towards further reforms as creating the opportunity for the sector to further grow and develop.

John Gould, Senior Partner, Russell-Cooke; Author, The Law of Legal Services and Member, Advisory Panel, Independent Review of Legal Services – Mr Gould began by asking if there is really a need and an appetite for change. He then went on to describe how the current system has become something of a “lottery winners bungalow”, with many developments and aspirational additions tacked on, with no coherent whole. Mr Gould suggested that this has created a system where compliance officers have become a necessity as a go-between between lawyers and regulators, with the public completely excluded, with no clarity as to how the system works. He suggested that a clearer and more understandable system must be developed with the relationship between activity and title being clearly defined, to create a system that can function for the public, practitioners and regulators.

Duncan Wiggetts, Executive Director, Professional Standards, ICAEW – Mr Wiggets discussed how the distinction between lawyers and non-lawyers has become increasingly blurred. He suggested that for consumers of legal services costs had become a key factor in how purchasing decisions are made, leading to a convergence between accountants, lawyers and other business advisors. Mr Wiggets pointed towards the Brydon and Kingman reviews into audit and financial reporting, suggesting that these could inform the ongoing work of the Mayson review. He suggested that both these reports pointed towards the primacy of public interest and the need for risk-based regulation.

Kirsteen Forisky, Head of Innovations, LEAP Legal Software – Ms Forisky pointed out that changes in the legal environment have fundamentally altered legal service delivery. She pointed out that to remain competitive firms must begin to use technology, particularly cloud-based software, in order to improve their efficiency and information-sharing capabilities. She pointed out that this will enable firms to work in an agile way, meeting client demands in today’s business environment, allowing them to offer an enhanced client experience, without creating added pressures and costs on employees.

Derek Sweeting QC, Vice-Chair, Bar Council – Mr Sweeting discussed the risks present in opening up the profession. He cited current concerns over unregulated legal providers, raising the example of Paul Wright v Troy Lucas & George Rusz, citing the danger of unregulated provision. Mr Sweeting suggested that consumers prefer to rely on named professionals, who they can trust and rely on to provide quality services. Mr Sweeting suggested that the growing number of solicitors entering into the profession combined with increased public legal knowledge would meet the unmet legal need gap in a way that allowed people to place trust in the legal sector.

Chair’s closing remarks

Lord Gold

Based on the discussion throughout the morning Lord Gold took the opportunity to urge the Ministry of Justice to take action on simplifying the regulatory regime, highlighting the fact that unless there is political action, the profession will continue to debate and delay ad infinitum. The Conservative peer raised concerns over regulators ability to respond to technology and other challenges and said: “If you leave it to the brilliant lawyers we have in this country, they will obfuscate and delay and it will never happen … Now is the time for the MoJ to rip this up and decide what exact regulatory regime we need for the future.”

The state of the market – transparency, consumer engagement and reflections on the 2016 Market Study

Chris Jenkins, Economics Director, Competition and Markets Authority – Mr Jenkins gave his thoughts on the progress that had been made since the release of the CMA’s hugely influential 2016 study on the legal services market. He pointed out that in the initial study there had been a pledge to review the progress approximately every three years, and told the event that a review was planned for the second half of 2020. Taking a broad view Mr Jenkins suggested that tackling the issue of public ability to asses price and quality had not been fully addressed and that more work was needed on the issue to improve consumer ability to make purchasing decisions. He called for regulators to push forward on improving standards of transparency, making it easier to compare services and providers. He did point out however that there had been greater progress in implementing changes improving independence and regulatory transparency which had been a positive move, although he suggested that there was still more work needed in improving consumer redress.

The focus on consumers – public confidence, competition and managing ‘unmet legal need’

Simon Davis, President, The Law Society – Mr Davis discussed the findings of the recently published legal needs survey, which was produced by the law society in partnership with the LSB and YouGov. Mr Davis pointed out that the results of the survey suggested that when people did purchase legal services from a solicitor the vast majority were satisfied with the service and outcome. He pointed out that many consumers were unsure if their problem constituted a legal problem and therefore failed to seek advice. He suggested, therefore, that the solution in tackling unmet legal need was improving legal aid provision and increasing public legal education, to help consumers identify when they had a legal issue.

Dr Ashwini Natraj, Senior Economic Consultant, Consumer and Behavioural Economics Team, London Economics – Dr Nataraj outlined the work that London Economics has been doing on the relationship between behavioural economics and public engagement with the legal sector. She discussed some of the ongoing issues that exist in public decision making around legal services, highlighting problems such as the complexity of the market, stress purchasing, information asymmetry, and the infrequency of purchasing. She pointed out that this has led to low awareness of consumer protections, low confidence in the sector, particularly amongst vulnerable groups and difficulty balancing price and quality. She suggested that behavioural economics approaches could be used to improve engagement and understanding of legal regulation, particularly as there was a difficult balance between providing enough information to give consumers clarity, which has to be balanced against overwhelming consumers with a vast weight of information.

Mariette Hughes, Head Ombudsman, Legal Ombudsman – Ms Hughes discussed the role of the Legal Ombudsman in improving public confidence in legal services. She pointed out that as the last resort and last port of call the ombudsman is often the key touchpoint in maintaining public confidence amongst the most vulnerable and most challenging cases. However, she pointed out that there was still a presumption that the ombudsman would be able to provide consistent supply and quality, raising questions over the resources available to the ombudsman. She also pointed out whilst having a single ombudsman for the whole sector helps to improve confidence, there is also the risk that a single ombudsman can not leave some gaps, which must be met by specialised regulators to avoid damaging public confidence.

Rob Houghton, Founder and Chief Executive Officer, really moving and The Law Superstore – Mr Houghton discussed the role of price and quality comparison sites in providing consumers with resources to better understand the legal market. He pointed out that having resources to compare prices allows for greater influence of natural market forces over an opaque marketplace. He suggested that having greater price and quality competition could only stand to benefit consumers, as it would increase the information available whilst also pushing providers to improve the value proposition of their services, effectively creating a new way to sell their services on value and quality, allowing them to compete with larger organisations.

Julia Salasky, Founder and Chief Executive Officer, Legl – Ms Salasky discussed the role that technology can play in addressing consumer side challenges. She suggested that as expectations of a certain level of consumer experience increase, failing to meet this expectation reflects increasingly negatively on the profession.  She suggested that technology could provide an incredible opportunity for the industry to improve communication around value and transparency of products, which could go on to inherently improve public confidence in their legal purchases, and therefore public confidence in the law as a whole.

Regulation in the legal services market – structures, roles and independence

Matthew Hill, Chief Executive, Legal Services Board (LSB) – Mr Hill raised concerns over the fact that unmet legal need was still a major problem and that the legal market was not working for a significant proportion of the population and economy. He compared the current regulatory system to a chair with two legs, saying “You can sit on it perfectly comfortably provided a lot of people spend a lot of time holding it steady for you. We do spend a lot of time making independence work by investing time and effort in it.” Suggesting that the current system can be made to work and that further change can be wrung out of it, however, to truly create an impact there must be a wholesale change in legal regulation. He said “The existing system is undoubtedly complex. It’s built around professions and not consumers. For example, reserved legal activities and title-focused regulators make sense to regulators and sectors, but not necessarily to the public.” He suggested that whilst public legal education played a valuable role, it clearly had not significantly shifted public views on the sector and was sometimes used as a way of blaming the public rather than taking responsibility for change. He ultimately suggested that reform would have to come about at some point and should be built around meeting consumer needs first. Mr Hill also questioned whether, given the scale of some regulatory bodies, they were all fully able to deliver public outcomes.

Ewen Macleod, Director of Strategy and Policy, Bar Standards Board  (BSB) –  Mr Macleod agreed that change was needed to improve public confidence. He suggested that the greatest risk to consumers came about during the initial advice to consumers. He, therefore, suggested that the answer did not lie in creating further barriers, and instead lay in working to improve reputational issues. He said that through broadening the scope of after the event regulation, increasing access to the Legal Ombudsman and improving public information over how to access legal services, public confidence could be improved. He suggested that the board supported a greater focus on risk-based approaches, but that a title was necessary to provide clarity during purchase, suggesting that there is an issue over how risk-based approaches can map onto the public consciousness of existing titles and recognition. Mr Macleod also suggested that the BSB needs to be ready to respond to new developments in legal technology, in order to meet public expectation on the issue.

Chris Handford, Director of Regulatory Policy, Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) Mr Handford explained that given the fact that as of yet there have not been changes announced in the regulatory regime, therefore the SRA would continue to reform within the boundaries of the existing framework, stressing that the SRA was limited by decisions made at a government level and within the LSB, and within the confines of the LSA. He put forward several reforms that had been put implemented by the SRA, including rewriting solicitors standards to become more principles focused; work to increase trust and consistency, including exploring better quality indicators and ongoing competence; he talked about legal technology suggesting that there is significant potential in the area to improve access to justice, however, also flagging that the SRA must be alive to the potential risks technology could create. Mr Handford suggested that the direction of travel in the profession was towards increasingly blurred boundaries, with a lot of change coming, pointing out that regulators must be ready to embrace and act on this change in order to manage it and effectively fulfil their function.

Stuart Dalton, Director of Policy and Enforcement, CILEx Regulation (CRL) – Mr Dalton began by advocating strongly for the reforms being suggested by Stephen Mayson, suggesting that CRL could be ready to address much of the regulatory void that the report had identified, particularly around tech, helping to address much of the identified need, suggesting that under its current position CRL is already well equipped to deliver regulation around specific activities, given its current structure in regulation across the legal sector. Mr Dalton also took the opportunity to highlight CRL and CILEx’s strong commitment to regulatory independence. Emphasising that CRL has committed to achieving the highest possible degree of independence from CILEx as is possible under current statutory limits. He suggested that in the future regulatory independence, with a public focus would become the norm in legal regulation and that CRL would be leading the way towards this change.

Chair’s closing remarks

Rt Hon the Lord Falconer of Thoroton – Lord Falconer, the architect of the LSA gave his thoughts on the proceedings saying it was “apparent that the legal services market is not servicing the whole market properly and that market forces will not solve that problem”. He said that clearly the solutions had to come from a combination of regulators and public funding, pointing out that government buy-in is necessary to implement and initiate genuine change. The peer gave a nod to discussions about the complexity of the regime, as well as the growing role of technology, saying: “I am sure that there are things that could be done to improve the structure, but I believe that the structure is sufficiently flexible for the regulatory issues to be met. I am not that persuaded that a fundamental shift in the legislative structure is a good idea… but I do think one of the big problems is the failure of the state to provide sufficient legal aid and other forms of funding for advice that the market would not otherwise provide.”

0

New Zealand Lawyers, Pro Bono, and Access to Justice

Executive Summary 

This report summarises the results of a study about the provision of pro bono legal services in New Zealand. Pro bono legal services – free legal assistance provided by qualified lawyers – is often pointed to as an option for assisting more New Zealanders to access legal services. This is in recognition that a large portion of the population does not qualify for legal aid (particularly civil legal aid) and cannot afford to pay a lawyer. To increase the amount of pro bono legal services available, the New Zealand Law Society President recently suggested New Zealand lawyers should aspire to deliver 35 hours per year (the same aspirational target as Australia). Little is known about the amount of pro bono services being offered, who is receiving them, and lawyers attitudes to providing more pro bono. We, therefore, designed a study to provide more information about the pro bono landscape in New Zealand, to help inform policy discussions on this issue. The study was conducted in two phases from September 2018 to February 2019 as part of a wider project about free and low cost services offered by lawyers. The first phase was a survey of the profession, which 360 lawyers completed. The survey included questions about how lawyers define pro bono, how much pro bono work they perform and for which clients, and whether they regard providing pro bono legal services as a professional obligation. The second phase involved qualitative interviews with 23 lawyers to elicit more detailed information about attitudes to pro bono work and how pro bono service provision operates in Aotearoa.

The results of the study suggest there is little shared understanding of what constitutes pro bono legal services. This is a significant impediment to any discussion about pro bono legal services, the amount of provision, who is providing the services, and the design of policy to encourage the provision of more pro bono services. The study also identified a blurring between legal aid services and pro bono. The underfunding of legal aid has meant that lawyers either consider legal aid is a form of pro bono or lawyers are offering pro bono to supplement legal aid. This is problematic in that pro bono legal services – which should be directed at those who do not qualify for legal aid but cannot afford a private lawyer – are being offered to litigants who qualify for legal aid. The results also suggest that were the NZLS to implement an aspirational target of 35 hours per annum, most lawyers would fall short of this target. While 41 percent of lawyers are exceeding the target, more than a quarter are doing no pro bono work that enhances access to justice. The remaining quarter are doing some access to justice focused pro bono work, but less than the suggested aspirational target. Furthermore, pro bono services are not distributed fairly either within the profession as service providers, or across the public, as service recipients. The study makes ten recommendations focused on three key themes: (1) that the profession develops a shared definition of pro bono, focused on pro bono that enhances access to justice, and that this definition be the basis for all programmes, targets and incentives for carrying out pro bono; (2) that a national clearinghouse for pro bono be introduced to minimise the administrative burden on lawyers providing pro bono and more equitably distribute pro bono services among the public; (3) that the legal profession associations encourage an increase in the amount of pro bono service via a number of mechanisms including regulatory reform and the introduction of an aspirational target.

Citation

Kayla Stewart, Bridgette Toy-Cronin, Louisa Choe New Zealand lawyers, pro bono, and access to justice
(University of Otago Legal Issues Centre, March 2020).

Available here

0

Law Society of Saskatchewan amends Legal Profession Act to expand access to legal services

The Law Society of Saskatchewan has announced amendments to the Legal Profession Act, 1990, effective from 1 January 2020. The Law Society is an independent regulator with the core mandate of the protection of public interest.

In 2017 the Law Society and the Ministry of Justice established the Legal Services Task Team, comprised of lawyers, member of the public and other non-lawyers working in legal services, as part of the strategic plan to increase access to legal services. The task team was asked to explore the possibility of non-lawyers being allowed to provide low-risk legal services.

The team’s recommendations included clarifying the definition of the practice of law, and identifying what constituted unauthorised practice of law; expanding the list of exemptions to the unauthorised practice provisions; and creating limited licenses that may be granted by the Law Society on a case-by-case basis.

Amendments to the Act which have been introduced include:  a clearer definition of the practice of law and allowing limited licensing, the first example of this approach in Canada. The Law Society of Saskatchewan Rules were also amended to include an expanded list of exemptions to unauthorised practice. The Law Society is attempting to identify further groups and individuals providing limited legal services, who are not lawyers, that may not fall neatly within the new list of exemptions.

The Society is hoping to encourage low-risk providers to self identify to be considered for exemptions, especially as the Society has historically not pursued low-risk providers. The Society feels that self-identification will allow for more effective management and regulation of such providers.

Further information about the reforms is available here.

0

Law Society of Scotland releases guidance to improve price transparency

The Law Society of Scotland has published guidance on pricing for solicitors, aimed to improve consumer understanding of the cost of legal services. The guidance encourages firms to publish indicative pricing up-front, allowing consumers to gain a broad overview of price comparison before they contact a solicitor. The guidance will come into effect on 1 April 2020 and will not apply to practitioners solely engaged in legal aid work, or firms that exclusively provide services to businesses.

Craig Cathcart, Convener of the Law Society of Scotland Regulatory Committee, said: “The guidance has been developed to improve price transparency for legal services and encourage solicitors to proactively publish information to help consumers in Scotland make better-informed choices. Whether someone is thinking of buying a new home, wants to make a will or set up a power of attorney, or they may have separated from a partner or have an employment problem, we hope members of the public will be able to get a better idea of the typical costs involved in such cases early on. As well as increasing clarity for consumers, this can help improve access to justice.”

The guidance will take into account the difficulty in creating a ‘one size fits all’ approach and will give firms the option to publish average or typical costs for cases or alternatively fixed fees for specific services such as residential property sales or certain types of divorce proceedings.

Further commentary from the Law Society is available here.

The full guidance is available here.

0

ABA approves resolution to expand access to justice

On February 17th, during its annual midyear meeting, the American Bar Association (ABA) House of Delegates approved resolution 115, encouraging State Bars to consider innovative approaches to expanding access to justice, particularly focused around improving the affordability and quality of civil legal services.

The resolution initially proposed by the ABA Center for Innovation and supported by several standing committees of the ABA Center for Professional Responsibility, calls on state regulators and Bars to consider regulatory innovations that would improve accessibility, affordability and quality of civil legal services. The resolution initially faced strong opposition from several Bar Associations. However, the resolution received overwhelming support from 596 member house following the addition of a provision stating: “Nothing in this resolution should be construed as recommending any changes to any of the ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct, including Rule 5.4, as they relate to non-lawyer ownership of law firms, the unauthorized practice of law or any other subject.” Rule 5.4 limits sharing of legal fees with non-lawyers as well as bars non-lawyer equity in law firms.

Further details about the meeting and the resolution are available here.

The proposed resolution and report are available here, with the final resolution available here.

0

Law Society of Alberta piloting part-time membership

The Law Society of Alberta is currently piloting a part-time membership programme, which would be the first of its kind in Canada. In order to be eligible for the part-time membership, a lawyer must be in private practice, work fewer than 20 hours a week, and average fewer than 750 billable hours per year (not including pro bono), gross billings must be lower than $90,000 annually.  Lawyers who meet the criteria would be eligible for reduced membership fees.

The Law Society hopes that the part-time membership programme will increase diversity in the profession, allowing more lawyers to continue working part-time, with research showing this will particularly benefit women in the profession, those who are moving towards leaving the profession and lawyers with health issues. They also feel that increasing the pool of active lawyers whilst managing costs in accordance with time will increase the accessibility of legal work, and therefore access to justice.

Information about the pilot is available here and here.

0