The buzz among the solo and small firm community recently has been the news that the State of Washington has begun to implement its Limited License Legal Technician (LLLT) program where specially trained non-lawyers will be allowed to represent clients and provide legal advice in certain areas of the law. Robert Ambrogi of the ABA Journal wrote a very comprehensive article on the growing use of non-lawyer practitioners and it is worth a read. Sam Wright also covered the story from his public interest perspective.
While it is believed that LLLTs will have an adverse effect on solo and small firm practitioners, I have not heard many attorneys complain publicly about it. Most established attorneys claim that they do not want the clients that LLLTs are created to serve so they do not see them as competition. Also, I think some attorneys are not speaking out against the program because they don’t want to be seen as kicking down poor people or minorities. So I will take this opportunity to address some of the complaints I have been hearing behind the scenes.
Some are problem clients. From my perspective, some of the people in need of “access to justice” (A2J) are not the good-hearted yet downtrodden souls people are led to believe. Some of them have money problems because they refuse to lower their standard of living and try to abuse pro bono programs and legal aid clinics.
Legal Is Changing. And NeoSummit Is Where The Future Is Being Built.
Legal and operational leaders are gathering May 6–7 in Fort Lauderdale to confront the questions the industry hasn't answered—with a keynote from Amanda Knox setting the tone.
Some are pathological liars (which probably got them in their legal mess to begin with) and con inexperienced, idealistic attorneys into representing them for free or low cost with the promise of paying much more in the future when “things get better.” The problem is that when things do get better, the attorneys are conveniently forgotten. It’s especially unnerving when you check your former clients’ Facebook and Instagram accounts and see pictures of them partying, dining on delicacies you can’t afford, and showing off their bling or their newest iThing. In the meantime, your bill remains unpaid because they claim they are “living paycheck to paycheck.”
Others are red flags and as a result have been turned down by multiple attorneys. They have unrealistic demands. They refuse to pay unless a certain outcome is guaranteed. Practice tip: Even if you achieve it, most likely they won’t pay anyway. They are slow in answering phone calls or sending you documents and money.
And then there’s the occasional venal character who scammed people out of their money and spent it on luxuries, a Ferrari, and a lavish house. When the guy gets caught, has his assets seized, his bank account frozen, and is hauled before the court, he has the chutzpah to tell the judge that he cannot afford an attorney because he is indigent.
In short, a number of low-income people are going to be difficult to represent. A few just have terrible life circumstances and both the client and the lawyer have to deal with them together as they come. But others just do not take their legal problems seriously and that is something that a cheaper LLLT will not be able to fix.
Most Law Firms’ AI Strategies Have a Big Blind Spot. Here’s How One Am Law 200 Firm is Solving It.
Most law firms, big and small, that have adopted AI are making the same mistake: they bought a tool for their lawyers and called it a strategy.
Why haven’t the state bars tried to reform existing law schools to meet A2J needs? In an article that explained the nuts and bolts of Washington’s LLLT program, the impetus for setting up the program was a 2003 study highlighting the legal problems of the poor and how they have difficulty obtaining legal representation.
Between 2003 and 2012, the year when the Supreme Court of the State of Washington adopted the LLLT program, the state bar, state courts, and other state agencies could have taken action to reform legal education in the state to better serve the needs of the poor. Why couldn’t they force law schools develop a plan to reduce tuition? Why couldn’t they force law schools to provide LRAP programs to help pay student loans for those who have proven their commitment to helping people of modest means?
To other states considering similar programs, maybe they should take a look at their own law schools and see if they can do something to close the A2J gap. Force them to lower tuition or provide comprehensive public service loan forgiveness programs. Or some schools with terrible post-graduate employment outcomes should stop producing JDs and produce LLLTs instead.
LLLTs may not be able to provide significantly cheaper service. LLLTs with plans to run their own practice will have overhead costs. Rent, malpractice insurance, legal research materials, continuing education, office supplies, etc. Their overhead costs might be just as high as that of a solo attorney with a shoestring budget. The advantage LLLTs have in terms of cost is significantly smaller student loan debt, although today’s law students are more savvy and aggressive about obtaining tuition discounts. IBR/PAYE/PSLF can also lower the debt load.
With this in mind, I have my doubts that LLLTs will be able to provide significant savings while maintaining a sustainable practice. Can LLLTs meet their monthly business expenses and help exclusively low-income individuals? They may have to take on traditional paying clients to help make ends meet.
The people who can afford attorneys will turn to cheaper nonlawyers instead. The response to the “they’re taking our jerbs!” argument is that LLLTs will service clients that attorneys do not want. Initially that will be true. But once the general public learns about LLLTs and their cheaper rates, they will have no incentive to pay an attorney. So slowly but surely, solos and small firms will lose clients to LLLTs. Then one day, this will happen…
The LLLTs will raise prices and eventually stop taking low-income clients. Once LLLTs establish their practice and take more paying clients from attorneys, they will focus their time on them, especially if they pay well. They may raise their prices to meet demand and some may even be able to match attorneys’ rates. They will be more selective about which low-income clients they take and refer others out. Some may even stop taking low-income clients altogether. Also, it is possible that LLLTs will be hired for doc review projects and even contract work for solos — court appearances, document preparation, client consultation. When these LLLTs begin to replace traditional attorneys and stop representing low income individuals, doesn’t that defeat the purpose of the program?
As I was writing this piece, I seriously wondered whether the time has come to change how small firm lawyers are trained. There have been calls to eliminate the third year of law school in exchange for a one-year internship. Legal procedures have generally been simplified and streamlined due to judicial budget cuts. Settlements are generally preferred so there is less need for trial preparation and creative arguments on appeal. Technological advances have generally made legal research and communication with clients easier. And the internet has to some extent reduced the need for lawyers because some of the answers to basic legal questions are available online.
I agree that the A2J gap needs to be filled. And specially trained nonlawyers practicing only in certain areas may help meet that need. But if these programs are to be expanded, the solo and small firm community should have a say in the matter (that is, if they bother to say anything at all.) If these programs are allowed to expand without scrutiny, these nonlawyer practitioners will end up replacing attorneys and may eventually abandon the underserved community they were created to serve.
For a future column, I would like to profile a former solo practitioner who has left solo practice for better or for worse. I am particularly interested in hearing from a person of color. If you are interested, please email me your story.
Shannon Achimalbe was a former solo practitioner for five years before deciding to sell out and get back on the corporate ladder. Shannon can be reached at [email protected].