KNOW, the Magazine for Paralegals Summer 2014 | Page 16

Chief Judge Jonathan Lippman was the
irresistible force behind the Court Navigator Program. In a State of the Judiciary
Speech, Judge Lippman noted that the
Housing Court and consumer debt cases
were selected because “virtually all defendants are unrepresented and facing
serious personal consequences as a result
of litigation. It is shocking that in this day
and age, over 95 percent of defendants in
these critical cases are currently unrepresented.”

‘90s, but had never gotten past study and discussion. The conditions for reconsidering this
idea looked better in the last few years, as the
American Bar Association started to talk about
it again and a program, described above by
Nancy, was finally adopted in the state of Washington (after more than a decade of work).
The LLWG held three information-gathering
meetings in 2013, learning about the Washington Limited License Legal Technician Program
and attempting to understand the impact of
California statutes that allow for unlawful detainer assistants and legal document assistants, who can provide help to consumers who
are representing themselves but are prohibited from performing any functions that would
constitute the practice of law.

The California State
Bar’s Work on
Limited Licensure

Teri:
In March 2013, the Limited Licensure
Working Group (LLWG) was created as
subcommittee of the State Bar Board of
Trustees’ Committee on Regulation, Admissions and Discipline Oversight (RAD).
The working group was charged with
exploring and reporting back to the RAD
on the feasibility of developing and implementing standards for creating a limited
license to practice law and/or the licensing of “legal technicians.” The concept was
that trained and regulated nonlawyers
could increase access to legal services to
consumers in designated subject matters
areas. This concept had been considered
by the Bar in California in the 1980s and
16

The working group also heard from legal aid
organizations and gathered data on the number of un-served and under-served consumers,
including such telling statistics as these: 7585% of the litigants in family law court are not
represented by counsel and there are 9000 clients who need services for every legal aid lawyer in California. The working group also heard
discussions about unbundling of legal services
as a possible way to lower the cost of using traditional legal services.
As reported by the Bar in its own Journal, there
was leadership support for the idea led by Craig
Holden, the Bar’s Vice President, given that the
justice gap has continued to grow and widen
with no truly impactful solutions in sight; however, resistance was voiced by practitioners
who cited instances of untrained and incompetent nonlawyer practitioners who prey on
vulnerable consumers desperate for help. As
has been the case in the past, the dilemma was
framed as how to meet the unmet need for legal services AND to protect consumers.
Like all special Bar committees, this working