California, Illinois, New Mexico and Utah are all considering legislative changes that would allow nonlawyers to practice law and own law firms. The sentiment behind allowing these business arrangements is that they will open up access to legal services for people who normally wouldn’t be able to afford them. But research shows the practice does not actually improve access to legal representation for the disadvantaged within jurisdictions where it is permitted.

The District of Columbia, Australia and the U.K. have rules that currently allow for such law firm ownership, but a recent study found that these alternative business structures did not make any measurable improvement to access to legal services for poor and moderate-income populations. Frankly, there is little evidence that non-attorney law firm ownership, fee sharing and entity regulation licensing reforms, if implemented, would increase access to justice in the states that are considering it.

Legal work needs oversight

This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.

To view this content, please continue to their sites.

Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Why am I seeing this?

LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.

For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]