Those leery of paraprofessionals could have legislators’ support

Opponents of a paraprofessional program could find support among lawmakers on some of the more controversial rules that a State Bar working group has proposed.

Although several steps remain before the proposal currently in the works in the Paraprofessional Program Working Group reaches lawmakers, Assemblyman Mark Stone, D-Scotts Valley, chair of the Assembly Judiciary Committee, said he is keeping a close eye on the developments.

Talking about the proposal that would allow non-lawyers to practice some areas of the law, Stone said there is a need for more attorneys in California to tackle access to justice issues. Paraprofessionals could fill a certain function in performing some legal services, according to Stone.

"But on the other hand, I am going to be watching very closely how we deal with that question of accountability and enforcement," Stone said. "This has been a challenge that we've had with the bar over the years and their obligation to protect the public. And so now, as the bar is moving in directions where they want to allow paraprofessionals and others to perform various services, I don't know that I necessarily object, but when something goes wrong, who is being held accountable?"

The question of accountability is one of many issues that have troubled opponents of the program. The bar has previously said that paraprofessionals would be subjected to comprehensive licensing, regulation and discipline with rigorous entry requirements and testing.

In an email, a bar spokeswoman said that the agency would seek approval for any paraprofessional program recommended by the board of trustees from the state Supreme Court and the Legislature, "and expects that any program would be implemented through a combination of Rules of Court, State Bar Rules, and statute."

The working group recently voted on a set of proposed rules of conduct for paraprofessionals. But worries remain, especially regarding low-income litigants, said Leigh E. Ferrin, director of litigation and pro bono at the Public Law Center.

Ferrin, who is also helping coordinate a group of legal aid organizations' advocacy efforts to provide input on the program, said that the groups have already had some informal discussions with lawmakers.

"It's still a little bit theoretical," Ferrin said. "It still has to go through the board of trustees and likely they'll approve it, but you never know. And then it does have to go out for public comment as well. And I think that public comment period will be really informative for the bar, but also for the Legislature and the Supreme Court in terms of what other concerns the public might raise."

Zachariah J. DeMeola, director of legal education and the legal profession at the Institute for the Advancement of the American Legal System in Denver, has been involved in similar debates in Utah and Arizona.

"You see the same points raised again and again in opposition," said DeMeola, who has been an advocate for changes. "These arguments have been made for decades now. So, we're intimately familiar with them."

The working group agreed on a much debated rule allowing licensed paraprofessionals to hold a minority ownership in a law firm under Rule 5.4. Another working group is considering whether this should apply to outside investors to spur alternative business models and expand innovation to increase access to justice. This would be tested under a so-called regulatory sandbox, which is already underway in Utah.

According to DeMeola, data from Utah is encouraging, showing more opportunities for lawyers and more services for clients. Although California is an enormous state and differs from Utah and Arizona, the problems are the same, DeMeola said.

"But there's a different model going on in both Arizona and Utah," DeMeola said. "The leadership came from the state supreme courts. It was directed by the state supreme courts, and they led the way. I suspect if we were to see some strong leadership from the California state Supreme Court, it might be easy there too."

Stone said he is skeptical about allowing paraprofessionals and outside investors to have ownership in law firms but pointed out that the issue is not before him right now.

"We're waiting and seeing," Stone said. "I have some opinions on this, but honestly, just kind of waiting and seeing what they're going to come out with, what they're going to focus on. And we do keep reminding them that anything they want to do, they're going to have to run through us."