I was given an opportunity to provide a Legislative Update piece in the Spring 2017 issue of TortSource a publication of the ABA Tort Trial & Insurance Practice Section. The focus of the Spring 2017 issue is “Evolving Legal Markets” and, although the authorship is Tennessee-heavy, I think you will find all the articles to be worth a read if you can get access. There is a piece on artificial intelligence, a piece on consumer-facing legal services provided by non-lawyers, a piece on predictive coding, and one on online dispute resolution.
My piece focuses on questions of UPL and responses by states to challenges posed by the companies that compete with lawyers for clients and I’ll share with you the conclusion section:
Other jurisdictions may choose to take more strident approaches, but it would appear that the best path forward for leveling the playing field for lawyers is to seek the adoption of regulations that will require companies providing such legal services to consumers to adhere to the same ethics rules as lawyers. The ABA’s Model Regulatory Objectives for the Provision of Legal Services (A.B.A. Resolution 105, Feb. 2016) provide one template for states to consider to pursue such a path forward.
That conclusion feels more prescient than it truly was because, this past week, the Oregon State Bar Futures Task Force issued its report on the Future of Legal Services in Oregon. Oregon is often discussed a rainy part of the U.S., and the volume of materials provided as the end product of the Futures Task Force is something of a deluge — the Executive Summary alone spans 15 pages of material. You can read the Executive Summary here.
There is so much content of note in the work the OSB Futures Task Force has performed that I foresee spending a few posts discussing aspects of it, but today I want to start with a discussion of the findings of one of the two committees that made up the task force.
But even before discussing those two items, some background about the Futures Task Force and about the structure of the report and recommendations is in order. First, the origin of the task force itself:
In April 2016, the OSB Board of Governors convened a Futures Task Force with the following charge:
“Examine how the Oregon State Bar can best protect the public and support lawyers’ professional development in the face of the public evolution of the manner in which legal services are obtained and delivered. Such changes have been spurred by the blurring of traditional jurisdictional borders, the introduction of new models for regulating legal services and educating legal professionals, dynamic public expectations about how to seek and obtain affordable legal services, and technological innovations that expand the ability to offer legal services in dramatically different and financially viable ways.”
Second, the first step that was pursued as to the Task Force once created:
The Board split the Futures Task Force into two committees: a Legal Innovations Committee, focused on the tools and models required for a modern legal practice, and a Regulatory Committee, focused on how to best regulate and protect the public in light of the changing legal services market.
The end result was that the Regulatory Committee has made three recommendations and the Legal Innovations Committee has made five recommendations. I plan to definitely write further, and in more detail, about the Regulatory Committee recommendations.
But, as indicated, for now I just want to talk about the findings made by one of the two committees, the Regulatory Committee. I want to focus on them because, I think, they reveal just how universal the situation is that is faced in U.S. jurisdictions and, in turn, this means that the work product of this Oregon group has obvious potential application as a road map for action just about anywhere. The Regulatory Committee made these nine findings:
- Oregonians need legal advice and legal services to successfully resolve problems and to access the courts.
- Consumers are increasingly unwilling or unable to engage traditional full-service legal representation.
- A significant number of self-represented litigants choose not to hire lawyers, even though they could afford to do so.
- Self-help resources are crucial and must be improved, even as we take steps to make professional legal services more accessible.
- Subsidized and free legal services, including legal aid and pro bono representation, are a key part of solving the access-to-justice gap, but they remain inadequate to meet all of the civil legal needs of low-income Oregonians.
- Despite the existence of numerous under- and unemployed lawyers, the supply of legal talent is not being matched with the need.
- Oregonians’ lack of access to legal advice and services leads to unfair outcomes, enlarges the access-to-justice gap, and generates public distrust in the justice system.
- For-profit online service providers are rapidly developing new models for delivering legal services to meet consumer demand.
- To fully serve the Bar’s mission of promoting respect for the rule of law, improving the quality of legal services, and increasing access to justice, we must allow and encourage the development of alternate models of legal service delivery to better meet the needs of Oregonians.
The question I would leave you with today is: any reason at all to think that the first 8 items described would be any different if the discussion was about your state and its consumers rather than Oregon and Oregonians? And, if not, then how could you think that the item identified in 9 isn’t something that your state is going to have to pursue as well?