A May 14 article by Ralph Baxter and John Lund again advanced the argument that "thoughtful proposals for reform" aimed at increasing "access to justice" for citizens and small businesses have been thwarted by the self-interest of lawyers. Fortunately, our legislators in Sacramento so far have seen through this claim, because they understand that the authors' proposals would jeopardize consumers without a commensurate benefit.

One proof of this is that public interest law firms such as Public Counsel, the largest public interest law firm in the nation, Bet Tzedek ("House of Justice"), and several other public interest firms—all of whom have no business or financial interest to pursue—have opposed these deregulation schemes. These public interest firms are motivated by their commitment to consumer protection, not by a fear of losing fees: They do not charge for their services.

There is not a word in the pro-deregulation editorial about protection of consumers, despite widespread unauthorized practice of law in California by incompetents and frauds, already a terrible scourge in this state. The state bar has a dubious record when it comes to stopping erring lawyers, let alone deterring "notarios" (who prey on persons needing help with immigration matters) and other untutored, unsupervised persons who claim to be able to take care of family law, trust and bankruptcy matters on the cheap.

Attorneys are subject to the Rules of Professional Conduct, but the proposed deregulation makes no provision for parallel rules for paralegals. Supposedly it is something to be considered after the fact. The lack of appropriate ethical guidelines combined with a failure to provide a robust regulatory framework for consumer protection is an open door to disaster.

Why would the subject of consumer protection be completely absent from the Baxter and Lund article? Perhaps it is because they don't have an answer to the problem of increased abuses against consumers that will result from authorizing independent, unsupervised paraprofessionals to practice law.

It might be different if there really were a highly reliable system for certification and regulation of paralegals for relatively simple tasks and projects. But this would take some expensive funding, and that is the rub. No one should be fooled by vague promises, as Californians were fooled when the state mental hospital system was dismantled. Sacramento failed to provide for alternate care facilities, and the mentally ill were left to dwell on the streets.

The failure to consider how to protect consumers is not the only shortcoming of the Baxter/Lund article. They contend that nonattorney ownership of law firms, and authorizing nonlawyers to practice law, will expand the availability (and hence affordability) of legal services and make them more economical. However, they offer no data or other proof that this will actually be the outcome. There is not a single example of the proposed innovations being implemented, and the results rigorously analyzed, which demonstrates that these proposals would in fact produce cost savings to working and middle class consumers.

The authors complain that barring nonattorney ownership of law firms means that firms are stuck in a Dickensian twilight; that they aren't modernizing for lack of capital; and that technological reforms are languishing. Where have Baxter and Lund been? Is there a lawyer today who isn't doing much of his work remotely, connecting via the internet to files, documents and clients in ways that would have been virtually unheard-of even a decade ago? The courts are moving to e-filing and virtual hearings for many processes. Lawyers are using technology to increase productivity, doing so with much less staff than 20 or more years ago. These changes have improved the affordability of legal services.

Far from law firms being unable to grow, as the authors contend, many firms have in fact morphed into globe-straddling behemoths employing thousands of lawyers and even greater numbers of support staff. The size of these super firms pales to insignificance beside the Big Four accounting firms; but how do any of them, either the big law firms or the Big Four, serve the average consumer? The answer is: They don't.

We are told that the motivation for nonattorney ownership of law firms is to serve the underserved. But there are other plausible explanations. Certainly one motivation for other service providers, such as accounting firms, must be to obtain access to law firm clients to broaden their base of services. Accounting firms have expanded into many avenues of technical and financial services in the bid for higher profits, but lower fees are not the result.

It is increasingly clear that the Task Force on Access Through Innovation of Legal Services proponents have no consumer protection agenda and that they do not have proof, as opposed to glowing promises, that their ideas will increase access to justice in the real world. Those who espouse deregulation of legal services are all about the entrepreneurial drive and not about greater justice.

James A. Gorton is a partner in the law firm of Gorton, Janosik & Poxon, and is certified by the State Bar of California Board of Legal Specialization as a Certified Specialist in Estate Planning, Trust & Probate Law.

William L. Winslow was chair of the trusts and estates section of the Los Angeles County Bar Association 2015-2016 and served on the association's Board of Trustees 2016-2019.