Most people know that our country has an “access to justice” problem. That is, there are many people that need a lawyer but are unable to find one. Many who could benefit from legal assistance don’t realize the law could protect them, or they don’t know where to find a lawyer, or they don’t know who to trust, or they don’t have the money to pay for it, or all of the above.
A lot of ink has spilled debating possible solutions to this problem. One innovation in this space is being used in Minnesota and I wonder if anyone knows about it?
In recent years, an increasing number of states have experimented with paraprofessional lawyers. In those jurisdictions, they identify a very narrow and limited set of legal issues that non-lawyers could help with and train those non-lawyers to carry out that service. These newly trained paraprofessionals move forward with some strict limitations but they can offer advice and guidance at a cheaper price.
An interesting ingredient in the access to justice jambalaya is how often it seems that lawyers are the only ones allowed to mix the pot. That is, only lawyers can decide who can practice law. This rule has proven to be a double-edged sword. On one hand, lawyers understand the system best, so they know if, when, and how to protect people from charlatans who would give bad legal advice. On the other hand, we can’t find enough lawyers. And there are certain parts of legal work that are actually pretty simple, so a person should not need four years of college, three years of law school, and then to pass a bar exam before helping out other people with a simple task.
I don’t mean to enter the debate here on whether a paraprofessional program is a good idea. It’s a pretty spicy one that I’m happy to muck around in, but this isn’t the time. I just want to give you a flavor for what’s at stake. Frankly, I want non-lawyers to be involved in this debate.
Within the past year, the Minnesota Supreme Court approved a Paraprofessional Pilot Program where these paraprofessionals or paralegals can complete certain training in order to advise on certain housing or family law issues. These paraprofessionals operate under a lawyer’s supervision. I don’t practice law, but I attended law school and I stay engaged in these types of issues. I recognize there’s a level of legal minutiae that I can enjoy, but everyone else shouldn’t have to in order to ensure justice for all. This is part of the reasoning behind lawyers creating a legal system that only they can tinker with. It can free you up to do other things that you enjoy.
However, legal systems also have the difficulty wrapped up in them that a lack of knowledge and accessibility creates grave injustices. I feel like the establishment and growth of this paraprofessional movement is something that more non-lawyers might want to keep an eye on – to weigh in on if and how accessibility is increasing.
It is important to note that other states have started paraprofessional programs, and some of those states have ended those programs because they found they were too expensive and brought only limited benefit. Lawyers will be watching closely and analyzing how effective this program is in Minnesota. Perhaps all of you non-lawyer readers out there should keep an eye on it as well.
Eddie Glenn lives and works at the intersection of law, technology, and strives to maintain humanity in both. He resides in southwest Minneapolis.
“On the other hand, we can’t find enough lawyers.”
Stop the presses! For the past four decades, I have been hearing that there is a glut of lawyers, and that recent graduates are having an increasingly difficult time finding legal jobs. There are stories abounding about law schools “having fun” with their placement results for alumni, to make it look like graduates are finding jobs. I have even heard anecdotes about recent graduates paying or being asked to pay for the privilege of working for an attorney. Now, we learn that the problem has been solved; in fact, the situation has flipped and there aren’t “enough” lawyers! When did this happen?
I don’t think the paraprofessional idea is a bad one. I just question the author’s premise.
Not many professionals are willing to work “for free or next to nothing.” Ask the person who changes the oil in your car.
Reading the law on the books basically says, if you don’t have a license, you can’t speak a word of law to anyone, ever. It reminds me of the authoritarian who wants to be his own judge. Also, the “know your rights lawyers” and never really define what those rights are.
It really begins with understanding why a person would ever hire a lawyer. When they get to that point things are really bad. They have an idea of the problem but not how it is considered by the law. I give lawyers credit for being able to twist the law in so many unexpected ways that a used car salesman wouldn’t understand. Most people hiring a lawyer should have nailed down why they are spending $250.00 or more to get a lawyer to represent them. That nailing down how the law applies takes up more time than any filing or court appearance. A person who can interview and decipher what the problem is doesn’t need a law degree, except in Minnesota. Well, maybe everywhere else in the universe as well.
It really doesn’t require a license to interpret the law.
You know it’s funny when supply and demand market champions suddenly complain about how much some kind of professional can make or is willing to work for… as if suddenly what you WANT to make determines income rather than what the market can bear. So a glut of lawyers doesn’t lead to a cheap lawyering despite the inexorable LAWs of capitalism. Whatever.
This program seems like a great start for allowing paraprofessionals to demystify the legal process and provide legal services that are affordable to the general public, which is often not the case when it comes to hiring a lawyer. For many mundane tasks, the legal work is already being done by paralegals or law clerks anyway, so expanding what paraprofessionals can do is long overdue. There are certainly many brilliant, skilled people who are lawyers, but the rules on who can provide legal advice are more about protecting the profession’s monopoly on legal services than protecting the public from unskilled charlatans. There are many areas of the law where a non-lawyer could competently provide legal advice, provided they’ve done the training–such as what might be required for a paraprofessional certificate. It will just require the legal profession to give up its monopoly on everything involving the law, a move that most practitioners resist because they don’t want the competition. Of course, at the root of all of this is the ridiculous cost for getting a law degree, which forces many future lawyers into the corporate world in order to pay off their law school debts. Reduce tuition costs and a lot more lawyers would be able to provide affordable legal services to the public. Or expand what paraprofessionals can do, which could certainly be achieved with a robust, two-year program. Otherwise, we’re left with a legal system that will never meet the needs of the public, an injustice that becomes even more unacceptable at a time where legal rights are being intentionally eroded by politicians and the Supreme Court.