 |
| Michael Houlberg |
In October 2022, the Texas Supreme Court requested the Texas Access to Justice Commission to propose "modifications that would allow qualified non-attorney paraprofessionals to provide limited legal services directly to low-income Texans."[2] After receiving the commission's recommendations on new and amended rules that would allow for ALPs, the Texas Supreme Court in August 2024 invited public comments on the new and amended rules and indicated that the rules were expected to take effect Dec. 1, 2024.
The court has since delayed the ALP program's effective date, citing in a November 2024 administrative order the need "to give due consideration to the comments received."[3] Just one month later, however, a representative in the Texas Legislature introduced H.B. 1528, which would create an ALP program with slightly different parameters.
Attorneys should be paying close attention to these updates in Texas — and across the nation — because this growing trend represents a significant shift in the legal landscape that offers both opportunities and challenges for practitioners.
This article will explore the rise of ALP programs by examining their qualifications, services, successes and challenges, and discussing what they imply for the future of the legal profession. It will argue that while uniformity isn't essential, increased standardization across state ALP programs will benefit both consumers and the professionals themselves, and that attorneys who adapt to this changing landscape will be best positioned for success.
The Rise of ALPs: A National Trend
Washington state pioneered the first ALP program in the U.S. in 2012. These programs certify individuals — who often have legal experience, but not law degrees — to provide specific legal services. These services can include legal advice, document preparation, client communication and even court appearances, in limited circumstances.
Washington created its program to address the access to justice gap, aiming to provide affordable legal assistance to those who couldn't afford traditional attorney fees. This initiative was driven by the recognition that many individuals and families, particularly those with low to moderate incomes, face significant barriers to accessing legal representation, which often leads them to represent themselves or forgo legal assistance altogether.
While other states were initially slow to follow Washington's lead, momentum has picked up considerably since 2021. Currently, seven states have implemented ALP programs, and over 10 more are actively considering doing so.[4] Texas is the latest state with a developed proposal.
This recent surge in interest reflects a growing awareness by many key stakeholders — state supreme courts, state bar associations and the public at large — of the potential ALPs have to address the access-to-justice crisis and provide more affordable legal services. It also suggests a shift in attitudes within the legal profession, with more attorneys and policymakers recognizing the value of ALPs as part of a comprehensive approach to delivering legal services.
Program Variations: A State-by-State Approach
While the core goal of expanding access to justice remains consistent, ALP programs differ across states. These variations include requirements for attorney supervision, the types of permissible legal services, testing and certification processes, and educational prerequisites.
For example, while Minnesota and New Hampshire require ALPs to work under the direct supervision of an attorney, Arizona, Colorado, Oregon, Utah and Washington allow for more independent practice. This variation in supervision models reflects differing philosophies on the appropriate level of oversight for ALPs and the balance between ensuring consumer protection and promoting access to justice.
Similarly, differences in permissible legal services reflect varying assessments of the competence and training of ALPs and the types of legal tasks they can effectively handle. Most states limit ALPs to working in family law, landlord-tenant disputes and consumer debt matters — three areas of the law with the highest rates of self-representation.
Arizona, on the other hand, has expanded this list to include administrative law, juvenile law and limited jurisdiction criminal matters. Arizona also allows their ALPs to represent clients in court to the same degree as attorneys, while most other states exclude ALPs from questioning and cross-examining witnesses.
These differences, while allowing states to tailor programs to their specific needs, can create complexities for both consumers and ALPs, particularly as the legal profession — and the country as a whole — are still learning who these professionals are and what they can do.
For consumers, these variations can make it difficult to understand the qualifications and scope of practice of ALPs across different states. For ALPs, the lack of uniformity can create barriers to mobility and limit their ability to serve clients across state lines.
Data-Driven Evolution: Successes and Challenges
To demonstrate that standardizing ALP programs will enhance access to justice, it is crucial to first examine the data emerging from existing programs, which reveals both their potential and the need for greater uniformity.
Although most ALP programs are relatively new, states have begun collecting data to assess their effectiveness. Early results reveal both promising successes and areas for improvement.
Positive Data
A 2021 study on Washington's program shows that ALPs can expand access to justice, particularly for lower- and moderate-income individuals. The Stanford Center on the Legal Profession interviewed Washington limited license legal technicians — the title ALPs hold in Washington — who reported that "the bulk of their clients fall between 200-400% of the federal poverty level."[5]
Most LLLTs also reported that they bill on a sliding scale according to their client's income, with an average billing rate of about $160 per hour, compared to Washington attorneys, who bill on average between $300 to $375 per hour.[6] This increased affordability is crucial for individuals who may not qualify for legal aid but cannot afford standard attorney fees.
This data should also ease one of the main concerns coming from attorneys: that ALPS are going to take their clientele. In fact, some attorneys have recognized that utilizing ALPs within their firms allows them to serve moderate-income clients they previously couldn't reach, expanding their market and freeing up their own time for more complex legal work, such as trial preparation.[7] This suggests that ALPs can be a valuable asset for attorneys, allowing them to better allocate their resources and serve a broader client base.
Furthermore, there is no evidence to support the initial fear that ALPs would provide inadequate or incompetent legal services.
In 2023, Washington and Arizona had the two largest ALP programs. That year, Washington had 81 active LLLTs, who received 5 grievances, compared to 33,661 active lawyers, who received 1,759 grievances.[8] The ratios of practitioners to grievances are roughly the same; however, no disciplinary actions were imposed on LLLTs, while 47 were imposed on lawyers.[9]
Arizona's ALPs — known as legal paraprofessionals — also received a similar ratio of grievances in 2023 as Arizona lawyers. No Arizona legal paraprofessional was disciplined, and 62 lawyers were either reprimanded, suspended or disbarred.[10]
These findings are significant and should soothe attorneys' doubts that ALPs cannot provide competent legal assistance or maintain ethical standards.
Challenges
Some remaining challenges include educating both consumers and legal professionals about the role and scope of ALPs, and ensuring consistent quality of service across different ALP programs.
Educating consumers and legal professionals about ALPs is crucial for promoting understanding and acceptance of this new role in the legal system, in addition to ensuring ALPs are able to help as many people as possible.
Ensuring consistent quality among ALP programs is clearly vital, but it requires states to become more unified in their licensing process, including educational, training and testing requirements, as well as their ongoing monitoring and evaluation procedures.
The variations in state programs also pose a challenge for ALPs seeking to practice in multiple jurisdictions.
The Advantages of Greater Standardization
While states should retain the flexibility to design ALP programs that meet their specific needs, greater standardization across states would offer several advantages.
Increased Reach
Unnecessary limitations on the scope of work and areas of practice hinder the effectiveness of ALPs. Allowing ALPs to practice to the full extent of their training and competence will maximize their impact on access to justice. Arizona is a great example of this, as it permits ALPs to work in family law, civil law, criminal law, administrative law and juvenile law, and to work cases from start to finish including full in-court representation.
Restricting the ALP scope of practice, on the other hand, can limit ALPs' ability to address the diverse legal needs of their clients and prevent them from fully using their skills and knowledge.
Clarity and Marketability
A more uniform approach would provide greater clarity for consumers about the qualifications of and services offered by ALPs. It would also make it easier to market these professionals nationwide, increasing their visibility and accessibility.
Increased clarity would empower consumers to make informed choices about their legal representation and facilitate the growth of the ALP profession.
Reciprocity
Standardization, particularly regarding whether ALPs are licensed to practice more independently or required to be directly supervised by attorneys, would facilitate reciprocity between states, which would allow ALPs to move and practice more easily. This is crucial for ensuring that ALPs can serve clients across state lines and promoting the growth of the profession.
Many attorneys have expanded their reach by obtaining reciprocity in multiple states, thereby creating a more national practice without having to sit for the bar exam in each state. Reciprocity among ALP programs would create similar advantages for ALPs.
Expanded reach for ALPs would also promote greater access to legal services, as there would be more ALPs available beyond those living in a particular state.
Without reciprocity, ALPs are limited in their ability to serve only clients who reside in the same state, which hinders their reach in this ever-advancing technological world.
The Future of ALPs: Adapt or Be Left Behind
As Texas looks to create an ALP program, it is the latest state to highlight that these programs are not just a passing trend. They are steadily growing, and their impact on the legal profession will only increase in the coming years.
As more data becomes available, it is likely that state programs will begin to converge, adopting best practices and refining their approaches. This convergence through standardization will also foster a clearer understanding among legal professionals of the ALP role and how it integrates into existing structures, while empowering consumers with better access to information about diverse representation options beyond the often-daunting prospect of self-representation.
The legal profession is undergoing a significant transformation, and attorneys who adapt to this change will be best positioned for success. Those who embrace ALPs as valuable partners in expanding access to justice and serving a wider range of clients will thrive in the evolving legal landscape. Just as the legal profession has adapted to other changes throughout history, it must now adapt to the rise of ALPs.
The question is not whether ALPs will become a permanent fixture in the legal landscape, but rather how quickly and effectively attorneys will learn to integrate them into their practices. Attorneys who proactively explore how to collaborate with ALPs, leverage ALPs' skills and draw upon their expertise will be better equipped to meet the changing needs of their clients and remain competitive in the legal market.
Michael Houlberg is director of special projects at the University of Denver's Institute for the Advancement of the American Legal System.
"Perspectives" is a regular feature written by guest authors on access to justice issues. To pitch article ideas, email expertanalysis@law360.com.
The opinions expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of their employer, its clients, or Portfolio Media Inc., or any of its or their respective affiliates. This article is for general information purposes and is not intended to be and should not be taken as legal advice.
[1] IAALS, the Institute for the Advancement of the American Legal System at the University of Denver, uses the term "allied legal professionals" to refer to a newer category of legal professionals who are authorized to provide specific legal services in particular areas of the law, often independently without attorney supervision and at a lower cost than the market rate for attorneys.
[2] https://www.texasatj.org/sites/default/files/2022_10%20ATJC%20Referral%20Letter%20%281%29.pdf.
[3] https://www.txcourts.gov/media/1459458/249095.pdf.
[4] IAALS has developed a knowledge center on ALP programs, which includes a map that shows where each state is in its process of developing an ALP program: https://iaals.du.edu/projects/allied-legal-professionals/knowledge-center.
[5] https://law.stanford.edu/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/LLLT-White-Paper-Final-5-4-21.pdf (pg. 16).
[6] https://law.stanford.edu/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/LLLT-White-Paper-Final-5-4-21.pdf (pg. 20).
[7] https://law.stanford.edu/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/LLLT-White-Paper-Final-5-4-21.pdf (pg. 19).
[8] https://www.wsba.org/docs/default-source/licensing/discipline/2023-wa-discipline-system-annual-report.pdf?sfvrsn=44f81ef1_9 (pgs. 8, 26).
[9] https://www.wsba.org/docs/default-source/licensing/discipline/2023-wa-discipline-system-annual-report.pdf?sfvrsn=44f81ef1_9 (pgs. 8, 26).
[10] https://www.azcourts.gov/arc/Annual-Reports (pg. 8); https://www.azcourts.gov/Portals/26/NLSP%20Board%20Annual%20Report%20to%20Supreme%20Court%202023%20-%20FINAL.pdf (pg. 6).