{"id":9782,"date":"2019-06-24T16:16:58","date_gmt":"2019-06-24T20:16:58","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/abovethelaw.com\/?p=583529"},"modified":"2019-06-24T16:16:58","modified_gmt":"2019-06-24T20:16:58","slug":"california-task-force-to-vote-this-week-on-sweeping-changes-to-legal-services-delivery","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/abovethelaw.com\/legal-innovation-center\/2019\/06\/24\/california-task-force-to-vote-this-week-on-sweeping-changes-to-legal-services-delivery\/","title":{"rendered":"California Task Force To Vote This Week On Sweeping Changes To Legal Services Delivery"},"content":{"rendered":"
\"\"

(Image via Getty)<\/p><\/div>\n

A task force appointed by the State Bar of California<\/a> will vote this week on proposals that could lead to sweeping changes to the delivery of legal services, including allowing private businesses to deliver legal services, without regard to whether the businesses have lawyer ownership or management, provided they are appropriately regulated.<\/p>\n

The proposals go beyond the alternative business structures allowed in the U.K., Australia, and other countries, where licensing schemes that allow private investment in legal services companies still require some level of lawyer ownership and management.<\/p>\n

\u201cProvided that an entity authorized to practice law is subject to appropriate regulatory standards and can be held accountable by an effective enforcement system, requiring lawyer ownership or management would not necessarily add additional public protection,\u201d said the subcommittee that drafted one of the proposals.<\/p>\n

The meeting June 28 of the Task Force on Access through Innovation of Legal Services<\/a> (ATILS) is just a first step in what is likely to be a drawn-out process of consideration and debate over the proposed changes. Three subcommittees tasked with studying changes to California\u2019s professional regulations will present their recommendations for approval by the task force\u2019s full membership.<\/p>\n

(<\/em>See the agenda and recommendations here<\/em><\/a>.)<\/em><\/p>\n

If the task force approves the proposals — which one committee member said is likely — it will present them to the State Bar\u2019s board of trustees at its meeting July 11. The trustees are expected to then put the proposals out for a 60-day period of public comment, and also to hold a hearing on the proposals during the ABA annual meeting in San Francisco in August. Based on that feedback, the task force will prepare a final version of the report and submit it to the trustees by Dec. 31, for consideration at the trustees\u2019 meeting in January 2020.<\/p>\n

Randall Difuntorum<\/a>, the State Bar\u2019s director of professional competence, who serves as coordinator of the task force, said that the trustees, if they decide in January to move forward on the proposals, would then appoint a new implementation committee to take on the process of finalizing the language of the proposals on work on the process of implementation.<\/p>\n

Ultimately, the proposed changes would require either approval by the California Supreme Court or implementation through legislation.<\/p>\n

The State Bar appointed the task force last summer after reviewing the Legal Market Landscape Report<\/em><\/a>\u00a0it commissioned from\u00a0William D. Henderson<\/a>, professor at Indiana University\u00a0Maurer School of Law<\/a>. In his report, Henderson made the case that the legal profession is failing in its core mission of serving those who need legal services.<\/p>\n

One of the most effective ways to address that, he argued, would be to ease rules on non-lawyer investment in order to allow lawyers to more closely collaborate with professionals from other disciplines, such as technology, process design, data analytics, accounting, marketing and finance.<\/p>\n

(Henderson discussed the report and his recommendations on my LawNext podcast: LawNext Episode 9: Bill Henderson on Changing the Non-Lawyer Ownership Rules<\/a>.)<\/p>\n

The proposals to be considered at Friday\u2019s meeting represent the work of three subcommittees, each assigned to study one of the three broad areas the task force was asked to examine:<\/p>\n