Limited License Legal Technician

Discussion in 'General Distance Learning Discussions' started by decimon, Mar 18, 2015.

Loading...
  1. decimon

    decimon Well-Known Member

    Michelle Cummings never went to law school. Her formal college education ended in 1998, with a paralegal studies degree from Highline Community College in Des Moines, Wash. But this summer, Cummings could start taking on legal clients who need help filing for divorce or child custody. Like a fully licensed attorney, she’ll be able to open an office and set her own fees.

    TaxProf Blog: WaPo: Who Says You Need a Law Degree to Practice Law: Limited License Legal Technicians

    I guess this could be done via distance education. In the State of Washington, anyway.
     
  2. sanantone

    sanantone Well-Known Member

    This is like the audiology/hearing aid dispenser situation, at least in Texas. Hearing aid dispensers get their training from audiologists and open up their own businesses that compete with audiology practices. I don't know how many audiologists have decided not to train anymore dispensers. I just wonder how difficult it's going to be for the graduates of LLLT programs to find lawyers who will be willing to train them for 3,000 hours.
     
  3. Kizmet

    Kizmet Moderator

    To me this seems a good thing. I expect that lawyers will (collectively) disagree.
     
  4. decimon

    decimon Well-Known Member

    Not needed as they are not preparing for the bar exam.
     
  5. Kizmet

    Kizmet Moderator

    You're absolutely right. But I've imagined that some might see a benefit and could, using their legal skills, craft a contract in which the trainee agrees to x years of employment with the lawyer following their acquisition of the new credential. I would think a smart lawyer could make that work in their favor.
     
  6. decimon

    decimon Well-Known Member

    I guess no one read what's at the link.
     
  7. sanantone

    sanantone Well-Known Member

    I read the article that says they need a 3,000-hour apprenticeship. Is there something else we should be clicking on in the article?

     
  8. decimon

    decimon Well-Known Member

    My apologies. At first read I thought that referred to something further.
     
  9. novadar

    novadar Member

    Reply withdrawn, I had an old browser window and noticed that this had been commented on after my "jumping on the pile" comment.

    Sorry.
     
  10. Neuhaus

    Neuhaus Well-Known Member

    There is a similar problem in New York with mental health counselors (a license my wife holds). In order to get a license, you need to work as a mental health counselor in an approved setting. There are limited institutional settings for LMHCs. So, many have to go out and hope to find an LMHC willing to train someone who is likely to compete with them (and steal part of their patient list) later on. Some do. If you have more patients than you can handle it might be tempting. Some have also resorted to making their proteges sign non-compete agreements that keep them out of the area for three years post-departure.

    My wife had a heck of a time finding a place to meet her experience requirement. So, she legally formed a counseling practice and employed herself. The state requires that the firm have a licensed counselor in order to operate. She hired one as a consultant. The consultant reviewed her notes and care plans just like they would if she was working for them. She essentially flipped the relationship. Rather than working for another counselor, she paid another counselor to be able to work "for" him.

    Completely legal and it worked for meeting the experience requirement.

    In this context, unless it was specifically prohibited by law, I imagine an entrepreneurial individual would start an LLLT, LLC and then contract a lawyer to provide the training.

    In New York you can qualify for the bar by reading the law. The requirement that sets NY apart from states like CA is that you have to have at least one year of training in an ABA approved law school. If you check Craigslist in areas around New York, you periodically find people who dropped out of law school after the first year and are looking to partner with a lawyer to read the law to qualify to sit for the bar. Many of them are offering similar arrangements. The most creative one I saw to date was an accountant with his own firm (and one year of law school under his belt) looking to hire a tax attorney as a partner who would be willing to facilitate his reading requirements.

    I'm sure that one can argue that this really undermines the "spirit" of these sort of requirements. But hey, lawyers and loopholes.
     
  11. novadar

    novadar Member

    This is absolutely brilliant. The epitome of thinking outside the box.
     
  12. novadar

    novadar Member

    This very interesting as well. I had no idea.
     
  13. SteveFoerster

    SteveFoerster Resident Gadfly Staff Member

    That's totally fantastic. :smile:
     
  14. Honestly, I don't disagree with what Washington is doing. It makes sense. Part of the underlying problem is the cost that it takes to make an attorney. Given the cost, the price tag is naturally passed along to the consumer/client. I don't see it changing much honestly. Those that can afford attorneys...will. That that can't but can afford LLLT's will go with them.

    I do see how this could be a slippery slop though. I imagine that some are going to read that article and think, "OMG...perfect way to get in the money!!!". I don't think that will be the case. They'll probably only be justified in charging what a paralegal normally charges. Plus they would have to do their own marketing, find a location, etc.... For some that won't be a problem. For others that's an uphill battle.

    If they are smart, they would simply volunteer/extern for their hours. There are very few lawyers that will turn down a person that's willing to do free work, especially if it's going to make them money.
     
  15. SteveFoerster

    SteveFoerster Resident Gadfly Staff Member

    A lot of people aren't in a position to work full time for free for a year and a half, and that's what 3000 hours represents.
     
  16. Neuhaus

    Neuhaus Well-Known Member

    I like the idea as a person who wouldn't mind doing a little bit of dabbling in the practice of law (but who is unwilling to take off three years to go to law school or move to California).

    Otherwise, I think it is a bad idea in the long term.

    We have a doctor shortage. How did we respond? Did we make it so that medical school was less expensive? Did we make medical education more readily available to people who live in areas without medical schools? Nah, we created additional layers of professionals and para-professionals. Only about a decade ago, a Physician Assistant in New York could be licensed by completing a certificate program at an approved training program (usually at a hospital, in a manner similar to the RN's who received diplomas rather than degrees). Now, Masters degree at a wide variety of universities throughout the state and you get to be a "mini" doctor.

    Some people think that's great. I think it's pretty obnoxious how many layers I have to go through at my doctor's office before I can see my doctor (the medical assistant takes my vitals, then a nurse reviews my medications, then a physician assistant examines me and if I'm very, very lucky, I get to see my doctor before I go).

    If people who didn't go to a U.S. law school can do lawyerish things we should probably begin to rethink how we handle legal training in the United States.

    In other countries you can enroll in an LL.B. program directly from high school. To be admitted to the bar, however, you need to work as a clerk post-graduation for a specific period of time.

    In the U.S. you first have to earn a bachelors in whatever. Then you go on and do another three years. Pass the bar on Monday, get your license issued on Tuesday and you can start your own firm on Wednesday. You could be representing someone in a capital murder case before your physical law license even arrives in the mail.

    Some states decide to license paralegals or, in this case, "legal technicians." In New York, you can be licensed as a "Licensed Representative" to represent individuals and corporations before the Workers Compensation Board (something usually reserved for attorneys). At the federal level, a CPA or an Enrolled Agent can take an exam to represent clients before the U.S. Tax Court in a manner identical to a tax attorney.

    It's pretty clear that one shouldn't need 7 years of education to practice law (though, at least one law school will still admit you without a bachelors degree). What's even more clear is that a number of legal functions can be accomplished by people who never went to law school.

    So, why are we holding onto the present system? Presumably to preserve the ridiculous barriers to entry to preserve jobs and salaries for lawyers. Considering how badly the market for lawyers has bottomed out it just doesn't seem to be working.

    I get why Washington is doing what it is doing. But honestly, I'd love to see a state just flip the bird toward the ABA and come up with a more sustainable scheme for the practice of law such as making it an undergraduate program with a required internship following graduation (or something completely new). Considering how many politicians are also lawyers I won't hold my breath.
     
  17. sideman

    sideman Well Known Member

    I agree that this is a slippery slope. How much autonomy is the state of Washington going to give a legal technician? What borders will they place on the tech to restrict them from the unauthorized practice of law? And will those borders satisfy the ABA? If they're just considered a paralegal, what are their rights and responsibilities? Remember the Florida State Bar v. Rosemary Furman (1979). I also agree that the poor and middle class are underserved, but is this the answer?
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 18, 2015

Share This Page