Law School Training for Licensed \u27Legal Technicians\u27? Implications for the Consumer Market

In January 2014, the ABA Task Force on the Future of Legal Education released its report calling, among other things, for limited licensing and the expansion of independent paraprofessional training by law schools. In Washington State, all three law schools are collaborating with community college paralegal programs to design and deliver specialized training for “Limited License Legal Technicians” (LLLTs), who will be licensed to deliver limited family law services beginning in 2015. At least three other states, including California and New York — which together contain nearly twenty-six percent of U.S. lawyers and seventy-six law schools — are actively seeking ways to expand nonlawyer training and licensing in high-need areas such as family law, immigration, landlord–tenant, foreclosure, and consumer credit.The involvement of ABA-approved law schools in the delivery of paraprofessional training could play a key role in the standardization of titles and training for nonlawyer practitioners — that is, the creation of paraprofessional “brands.” Such standardization could facilitate the development of a national consumer legal market by promoting quality assessment and professional mobilization, on the supply side, as well as consumer awareness of and demand for new paraprofessional roles. This Article examines the status of the Washington LLLT initiative and its reception in other states. It argues that, while the Washington model faces strong headwinds in the form of lawyer resistance on the one hand and unregulated competition on the other, law school training for licensed legal technicians is a promising means for institutionalizing a nationally recognized, independent paraprofessional brand, which itself could promote broader consumer access to — and demand for — routine legal services

Evidence-Based Lawyer Regulation

The legal profession is losing its authority over the regulation of legal services. Recent changes in antitrust law have put state bar associations under a spotlight. Competition from technology companies and concerns about access to justice have increased political pressure for market liberalization. Independent research is challenging the unique value of lawyers’ services, even in formal legal proceedings, and this research is increasingly well-organized and well-funded at the national level. The organized bar is asleep at the wheel and ill-prepared to respond.This Article argues that the United States is moving toward evidence-based lawyer regulation, and suggests strategies for equipping the bar to contribute to evidence-based policy-making. It focuses specifically on strategies for institutionalizing independent research norms within the profession and making empirical assessment a required feature of professional self-regulation

New Sources of Managerial Authority in Large Law Firms

The academic literature on large law firms emphasizes the limited authority of professional managers and the ability of rainmaking partners to sidestep formal management controls. Research suggests that bureaucratic management structures, such as dedicated, professional managers, tend to be weak or unstable in law firms, where compensation and status are tied to control over clients. Thus, while many commentators point to the potential competitive benefits of professional management - or, what typically is referred to as the corporate model - most analysts are skeptical that U.S. law firms will embrace such a model any time soon. This Article stakes out a contrary view. I argue that dedicated executive management is inevitable in large law firms and, with it, the development of distinct cadres of professional lawyer-managers, such as law firm general counsel and chief executive officers (or chairs). In fact, this process is well underway. The more interesting question is the likely relationship between dedicated executive managers and other constituents of the firm, particularly equity partners. Robert Nelson (1988) and others have argued that truly autonomous management is unlikely in law firms due to partners\u27 ideology and/or economic power. I argue, however, that the current conditions of competition among large law firms - that is, the AmLaw 200 - create new incentives for strong central management and new sources of managerial authority within firms. Thus, I predict that partners increasingly will embrace autonomous management. My arguments grow out of my research on the position of law firm general counsel. The structural evolution of the law firm general counsel position provides a valuable window into the dynamics of law firm management, particularly changes in the bases of managerial authority. My research also suggests a number of specific mechanisms for change, such as industry consolidation, the development of professional networks among managers, and generational change among partners

The Professionalization of Law Firm In-House Counsel

This Article examines the structural evolution of the firm counsel position from a volunteer, part-time position filled by an existing partner to a specialized, often full-time position increasingly filled by career in-house counsel. Based on focus groups and interviews with firm counsel, as well as participant observation at meetings and conferences aimed at firm counsel, I examine how the professionalization of the firm counsel position affects: (1) the definition of the firm as the client; (2) the authority of firm counsel with partners; and (3) firm counsels\u27 professional commitments and attitudes about ethical rules. I find that, from a regulatory standpoint, the professionalization of firm counsel is a positive development. The increasing formalization and specialization of the firm counsel position has. helped to clarify the identity of the firm as a client without compromising the authority or commitment of lawyers who serve in that role. Although professional firm counsel-that is, full-time firm counsel and those appointed from outside the firm-tend to draw on different sources of authority than part-time firm counsel who grew up in the firm, most respondents report that their role is expanding and that they have sufficient authority to be effective. I argue that professional networks among firm counsel are likely to play a critical role in defining the future standards for law firm regulation and urge legal ethics scholars to collaborate with firm counsel in promoting the vibrancy of such networks

The Professionalization of Law Firm in-House Counsel

This Article examines the structural evolution of the firm counsel position from a volunteer, part-time position filled by an existing partner to a specialized, often full-time position increasingly filled by career in-house counsel. Based on focus groups and interviews with firm counsel, as well as participant observation at meetings and conferences aimed at firm counsel, I examine how the professionalization of the firm counsel position affects: (1) the definition of the firm as the client; (2) the authority of firm counsel with partners; and (3) firm counsels\u27 professional commitments and attitudes about ethical rules. I find that, from a regulatory standpoint, the professionalization of firm counsel is a positive development. The increasing formalization and specialization of the firm counsel position has. helped to clarify the identity of the firm as a client without compromising the authority or commitment of lawyers who serve in that role. Although professional firm counsel-that is, full-time firm counsel and those appointed from outside the firm-tend to draw on different sources of authority than part-time firm counsel who grew up in the firm, most respondents report that their role is expanding and that they have sufficient authority to be effective. I argue that professional networks among firm counsel are likely to play a critical role in defining the future standards for law firm regulation and urge legal ethics scholars to collaborate with firm counsel in promoting the vibrancy of such networks

When Do Facts Persuade? Some Thoughts on the Market for “Empirical Legal Studies”

Chambliss talks about how Marc Galanter has devoted himself to combating the jaundiced view of the civil-justice system. Armed initially with great faith in the power of social science, Galanter and other socio-legal scholars of his generation, as well as many who have followed, have tried to combat misinformation in law and policy with the findings from systematic research--as if the facts would speak for themselves

Marketing Legal Assistance

Much of the American conversation about access to justice focuses on regulatory barriers to new forms of service delivery and treats regulatory resistance as the primary problem to be solved. Meanwhile, obstacles to consumer awareness and engagement have received less attention. This essay reverses the order of analysis and considers strategies for expanding access first from a marketing perspective. What models of legal assistance have been most successful in building consumer awareness and trust? To what extent can successful marketing help to sidestep or overcome regulatory resistance? And what are the implications for reformers interested in expanding access to justice

Organizational Determinants of Law Firm Integration

one