A federal court ruling in Connecticut is good news for some lawyers, who say individuals and groups offering alternative legal services represent a growing competitive threat.

But others question if this is only a small victory in a war where consumers—not attorneys—will determine the winner.

Related: Some Connecticut Lawyers Struggling to Make a Living. What's the Bar Doing?

The case involved a nonattorney advocate who can no longer represent clients after a Connecticut public agency prohibited her representation, and instead mandated that only lawyers can practice before it. Some lawyers say the nonattorney's appellate lost is good news for people licensed to practice law.

The litigation centers on Mica Notz, a nonattorney advocate who had represented clients before the Connecticut Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities for more than 20 years.

But in October 2016, the commission, a state agency that investigates and enforces alleged violations of anti-discrimination laws, told Notz she'd no longer be allowed to offer that service because she wasn't an attorney. Notz could still represent people in front of the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the federal counterpart to the state agency.

That discrepancy was one of Notz's arguments before U.S. District Judge Jeffrey Meyer of the District of Connecticut.

Her arguments failed though.

"Notz alleges that the EEOC allows her to represent clients in proceedings before the EEOC," Meyer wrote in his nine-page ruling. "But the fact that the EEOC may, as a matter of grace, convenience, or oversight, allow Notz to represent clients before the EEOC does not mean that the EEOC is legally required to do so, much less does it mean that a state entity like the CHRO is legally required to allow non-attorneys to represent parties in proceedings before the CHRO."

'Consumers will decide'

Geraghty & Bonnano attorney Mark Dubois said he has no doubt there are many happy lawyers out there because of the ruling. But, he said, they might not be happy for long.

"Many attorneys do think that type of service is taking money away from them," Dubois said. "This woman may have lost the battle, but at the end of the day, her side might have won the war, because consumers will decide this issue—and not lawyers."

Dubois said alternative legal services are becoming more attractive due to a variety of factors ranging from money to time and convenience. And they're thriving in areas such as wills, contracts and debt collection.

"This is a very touchy issue these days," Dubois said. "There is a whole universe now of alternative service providers, like LegalZoom, on the internet. These people are not lawyers. Are they taking away money from lawyers? Yes, to the extent that people will hire lawyers to go before an agency like the CHRO. But no, to the extent that many people will just not hire lawyers to represent them in front of the CHRO anyway."

It appears, Dubois said, the commission was acting on a September 2015 Connecticut Supreme Court ruling in Persels & Associates v. Banking Commission. The Supreme Court said it was up to the courts, and not the agencies, to decide whether nonattorneys could represent individuals in front of them.

"The court said it's a separation-of-powers issue, and it's the courts' prerogative—and not the agencies," Dubois said.

After the Persels ruling, "Many agencies in the state said, 'No more lawyer representation,'" Dubois said.

More efficient?

But professionals such as Notz suggest they're providing a valuable service, and fulfilling demand.

"Over the years I have watched victims of discrimination have to wait two to three months to be able to file a claim with the local CHRO due to backlog," Notz wrote in an emailed statement to the Connecticut Law Tribune. "These are claims that can reasonably be filed on behalf of a victim by someone who knows the process. Individuals, more times than not, do not know their rights in regards to filing responses, or that they could have witnesses at their hearings to speak on their own behalf."

Representing the commission were attorneys with the state's Attorney General's Office. Elizabeth Benton, a spokeswoman for the office, declined to comment on the ruling.

Meanwhile, the Connecticut Bar Association created a task force to examine several issues affecting the industry, including alternative legal services.

"There is a wide market of alternative legal services, and it varies," CBA President Ndidi Moses said. "It's a very evolving area, and the legal community is trying to get a pulse on this. The task force will look at how these services affect attorneys, what different types of services are out there, how it impacts attorneys, and how it impacts the public."