Attack on use of paraprofessionals makes weak case

The Oct. 19 column by James A. Gorton and William L. Winslow, "Evidence to support use of paraprofessionals is missing," contained a few claims that on their face warranted a response.

According to Gorton and Winslow, half of Californians would not be served by the licensing of paraprofessionals in California because their finances are such that these services would still be unaffordable. As such, they argue that licensing paraprofessionals would "assist only a narrow portion of Californians, leaving especially the lower half of incomes more or less as they stand now."

Let's assume they are correct that half of Californians could not even afford to be assisted by licensed paraprofessionals. The 2019 California Justice Gap Study Executive Report states that "Californians received no or inadequate legal help for 85% of their problems." Based upon those statistics, only 15% of Californians receive some or adequate legal help from lawyers for their problems. Assuming that 50% of Californians could afford to be assisted by licensed paraprofessionals and that the only reason why only 15% of Californians "receive some or adequate legal help from lawyers for their problems" is financial, the licensing of paraprofessionals would increase the percentage of Californians who could afford to receive some or adequate legal help to 50% of the population. Using their figures, the paraprofessionals would be able to serve the 35% of California's population that could afford such services, and which is not being served by lawyers -- more than double the percentage of the population currently served by lawyers.

I am struggling to grasp how such an increase is defined as "only a narrow portion of Californians."

The elephant in the room that none of the articles by lawyers opposing the licensure of paraprofessionals seem to address is that finances are only one reason for the decline in the public's retention of family law attorneys. This was described as follows in my article "The Amplification of Bias in Family Law and Its Impact," which was fact-checked and published in the Journal of the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers in 2020:

"One other related bias typically held by attorneys, is the lack of recognition within the family law community that one reason for the decline in the public's retention of family law attorneys is actually 'a rejection of the services lawyers offer in family disputes.'

In 1994, the American Bar Association Standing Committee on the Delivery of Legal Services published an article citing several studies documenting an increasing percentage of self-represented litigants in divorce cases between the mid-1970s and the mid-1990s. That article mentioned that lack of affordability was not the only reason people were opting to represent themselves. As a result, it concluded that 'law school curriculums may need to adjust to the changing needs of divorce clients by providing more education on conflict resolution and client counseling .... Legal education should prepare lawyers to help their clients psychologically by reducing stress and conflict during the divorce process.'

In 2017, the Association of Family and Conciliation Courts released a survey in which a variety of professionals involved in the field of family law indicated that they believed there had been a dramatic increase in self-represented litigants in the past seven years. The professionals involved in that survey included lawyers, academics, court administrators, judges, mediators (private and court-employed), custody evaluators, and parent educators. Unless and until family law practitioners come to terms with this rejection of the services they offer in family disputes, the percentage of the population retaining them will likely continue to decline. Awareness of the issue and its causes can help to stop the decline from both continuing and increasing....

Unfortunately, ... little, if anything, is being done to even make lawyers aware of biases long known to impact them."

If you do not properly understand a problem and its causes, you cannot hope to properly address it. Regardless, accepting the information conveyed by Gorton and Winslow as accurate, increasing the percentage of Californians who can afford some or adequate legal help from 15% to 50% seems like a significant improvement. Furthermore, by increasing the percentage of the population that can afford such services, there would be less need for "expanding legal aid services and increasing self-help clinics for pro pers in the court houses." These are not mutually exclusive remedies, by the way.

Left unchecked, biases cause people to constrict and distort the information they receive, understand and consider. The more constricted and distorted the information received, understood and considered, the more impaired one's thinking becomes. As I stated in my Sept. 21 column in the Daily Journal, "Is Focusing on Perceived and Actual Biases Misplaced," "In her recently published book 'The Inclusive Leader: Taking Intentional Action for Justice and Equality,' Dr. Artika R. Tyrner presents various studies which reveal that implicit bias is particularly prevalent in the legal field."

The Access to Justice Gap is based upon the premise that in order for people to "access justice," they need to receive "legal help." If "implicit bias is particularly prevalent in the legal field," does that not impact people's ability to "access justice"?

-- Mark Baer

Pasadena