ABSTRACT
Access to justice faces challenges in the United States, with nearly half of all Americans unable to sufficiently address civil legal needs because of limited legal aid resources, the high cost of engaging a lawyer, and other factors. Since 2014, some states have implemented allied legal professional (ALP) programs to address this inequity. ALPs, though not lawyers, offer limited-scope legal services in areas of high civil legal need, such as family law, unlawful detainer, consumer debt, limited jurisdiction civil, and other legal matters, at potentially lower costs than lawyers. However, ALPs, often compared to nurse practitioners in medicine, have sparked intense debate among lawyers concerning their impact on the legal profession and access to justice. This study explored lawyers’ perspectives on ALP programs by examining public comments from 10 states (i.e., Arizona, California, Colorado, Florida, Illinois, Minnesota, Oregon, Texas, Utah, and Washington) solicited by state agencies, regulatory bodies, and legal organizations between 2018 and 2023. Guided by Buchanan’s public choice theory and Kingdon’s multiple streams framework, the study used qualitative descriptive content analysis, essentialist epistemology, and experiential orientation to distill lawyers’ views into themes concerning the integration, functionality, and efficacy of ALP programs in the legal ecosystem. Lawyers’ public comments were then analyzed in terms of supportive and critical discourse, weighing ALPs’ potential to democratize legal services, concerns about professional integrity and interests, and consumer protection and benefits. The study’s findings conclude with recommendations and may inform policy discussions concerning ALPs as a means to improve civil access to justice.
Mitchell-Mercer, Alicia, Public Policy and the Civil Access to Justice Crisis: Exploring Lawyers’ Perspectives on Regulatory Reform and Allied Legal Professionals (March 13, 2024).
Leave a Reply