“Consumer Perspectives on Alternative Legal Services” was a two-day summit that brought 20 legal
innovators together to discuss ways to improve consumer access to legal services and representation.
Sponsored HALT, the conference was held on October 15 and 16 (2009) just outside Washington, D.C.
Our purpose in convening the conference was to explore how CLEAR could assist alternative
providers overcome the challenges they face and also deliver better service, value and accountability
to consumers.
HALT submitted comments to the Washington Supreme Court recommending it adopt a new rule, which would allow legal practitioners other than lawyers to provide affordable legal services to Washingtonians.
HALT supports a proposal by the State Bar of California to expand the use of limited scope representation as a way to make the justice system more accessible for the many people that could not otherwise afford to hire a lawyer. Additionally, HALT supports stepping up efforts to educate legal consumers about limited scope representation.
Sixty-nine years ago, a young Yale law professor rocked the legal establishment with a scathing indictment of the American civil justice system entitled Woe unto You, Lawyers!
Almost overnight Fred Rodell became the nation's leading debunker of legal myths, and the target of untold ire from thin-skinned lawyers.
This issue brief explores some of the problems currently plaguing the nation's guardianship system and points to emerging reform strategies for dealing with professional guardians and other problems currently plaguing the nation's guardianship system.
HALT's new study "Access to Justice: Self-Represented Divorce Litigants in California," investigates how California's family court responds to the needs of its pro se litigants (often referred to as pro per litigants in California), and recommends improvements that could be adopted by California and other states.
"Courts have a responsibility to serve the people who use them, and our study provides a simple road map for how courts, especially divorce courts, can help the ever increasing number of pro se litigants," commented HALT Executive Director James C. Turner. "Every state court system can learn from California's example and take the necessary steps to make family court a more accessible and user-friendly place for the self-represented."
A recent HALT-sponsored study shows overwhelming satisfaction with independent paralegals among Californians who have used their services. The study, undertaken by students at the University of California Hastings College of the Law, questioned consumers in the San Francisco Bay area who had used independent paralegals (known in California as “legal document assistants”) about their experience using these non-lawyer service providers. The study found that those surveyed “have voiced a unanimous belief that [legal document assistants] provide an important service for those who cannot afford representation at divorce.”
HALT submitted comments to the California Law Revision Commission supporting its proposal to allow equitable relief in limited civil cases. Limited civil cases are those with a dispute concerning $25,000 or less, which allowing litigants to use simplified procedures (although not as simplified as those in small claims court). The proposal recommends that limited jurisdiction courts be allowed to award certain relief besides money damages, thus making these courts more useful to their users. A link to the proposal can be found here: on http://www.clrc.ca.gov/pub/Misc-Report/TR-EquitableRelief.pdf. The CLRC is a governmental agency which studies issues assigned by the legislature and provides recommendations to the legislature on those issues.
- HALT filed comments with the state supreme court opposing a measure that would allow the Board of Legal Document Preparers to test applicants for certification as legal document preparers on substantive areas of the law. HALT's comments pointed out that LDPs are not lawyers, and should not face a "miniature bar exam" to earn the right to fill out documents.
- HALT filed an amicus curiae brief in the case King v. First Capital Financial Services, which concerns whether mortgage document preparation by a non-lawyer is the unauthorized practice of law. In its brief, HALT urged the court to follow a nationwide trend of court decisions that have acknowledged that not every legal need-in this case, simple document preparation-demands a lawyer. The case will be argued before the Illinois Supreme Court on September 28. The court should issue a decision in late 2004 or early 2005.
- HALT filed comments with the state's supreme court regarding a proposed new definition of the practice of law. HALT commended the court and the Utah Judicial Council for drafting a proposed rule that would protect legal consumers' access to a range of legal service providers, including less expensive non-lawyers. HALT recommended modifications to the rule that would ensure that the definition would be used to protect legal consumers from fraudulent service providers, rather than to protect lawyers from economic competition.
- HALT weighed in on a double standard in the impeachment of Governor John Rowland. State lawmakers proposed legislation allowing out-of-state lawyers to work on impeachment matters for the governor and the legislature. HALT Senior Counsel Tom Gordon wrote a commentary for the Connecticut Law Tribune on the hypocrisy of the legislature allowing a greater choice of legal service providers for itself than it does for the rest of the state.
|
