Most commenters on State Bar’s paraprofessional plan opposed it

The vast majority of more than 1,300 comments the State Bar received on a proposed plan to let non-lawyers obtain licensure to practice in certain areas of law were in opposition, the bar said Thursday.

As described by the bar, a legal “paraprofessional” is to “a lawyer as a nurse practitioner is to a doctor,” and would be licensed to provide legal services within certain areas. Unlike a paralegal, paraprofessionals may practice without attorney supervision and could own up to 49% of a law firm, if certain recommendations are adopted by the bar’s “Paraprofessional Program Working Group.”

State Bar Public Information Officer Rick Coca said the amount of public comment shows, “there is great interest in this item from people with different interests, scopes, and perspectives,” and the bar welcomes their input.

Proponents of the plan say it would help to close the access to justice gap and help lower income litigants seek legal services at an affordable cost.

Genie E. Harrison of Genie Harrison Law Firm, along with the Consumer Attorneys Association of Los Angeles, leads an opposition movement. She said key provisions in the proposed plan would allow corporations to profit from the legal profession. By allowing non-lawyers to share legal fees with attorneys, and changing Rule 5.4 of California’s Professional Code of Conduct — which prohibits such fee sharing arrangements — corporations could soon be afforded the same right, she said.

“The State Bar will tell you that it’s only to allow the paraprofessional to own 49.99% of a law firm. It doesn’t specifically allow Google, for example, to own 49.99% of a law firm,” Harrison said. “From my perspective, this is a fallback position that says, ‘Even if we can’t get all the way in the door, at least we can get our foot in the door by chipping away at and changing Rule 5.4 in regards to paraprofessionals.’”

The bar invited the public to comment on the plan from Sept. 24, to Jan. 12. Of the 1,160 individual commenters, 73% were opposed to the working group’s plan, 21% supported it, 4% supported the plan if modified, and 1% took no position. Of the 48 organizations that commented, 54% were opposed to the plan, 27% supported it, 6% supported it if modified, and 13% took no position. If someone posted multiple comments, they were counted once.

Myanna Dellinger, the law and policy director of a nonprofit organization, the EinStrong Foundation in Pasadena, said the amount of opposition did not surprise her. She said she believes it reflects a lack of understanding of the need to modernize the legal profession with the help of law schools.

“We have come to accept many levels of medical professionals — for instance ‘doctors,’ ‘registered nurses,’ ‘certified nurse practitioners,’ and ‘physician’s assistants,’” Dellinger said. “In the legal field, we only operate with two major types; attorneys and paralegals. Time has come to accept reality with the needs of everyday people and their economic situation. We pride ourselves on the values of inclusivity and new thinking. Yet when it comes to it, many attorneys are overly traditional and protective of their own status.”

According to a study published by the State Bar, 55% of Californians experience at least one civil legal problem in their household each year, and Californians received no or inadequate legal help for 85 % of these problems due to a lack of knowledge about what constitutes a legal issue and concerns over legal costs.

“A thoughtfully designed and appropriately regulated paraprofessionals program is an important component of the solution to the access to legal services crisis in California by expanding the pool of available and affordable legal service providers,” the State Bar said in a statement.

A paraprofessional would be allowed to perform legal services such as clearing a debt record, filing a name or gender change, assisting with wage and hour claims and enforcement of judgments, assisting with unemployment claims, assisting with denial of public benefits, filing a simple divorce; creating custody agreements, expunging a criminal record, adopting a child and resolving a landlord-tenant dispute.

Other states have adopted similar programs to allow non-lawyers to practice. California would be the largest state to do so.

Harrison’s criticisms of the plan echoed those of Sen. Tom Umberg, D-Orange County, who in December wrote to Ruben Duran, chair of the State Bar’s board of trustees, expressing concern over the plan.

“Corporate ownership of law firms and splitting legal fees with non-lawyers has been banned by common law and statute due to grave concerns that it could undermine consumer protection by creating conflicts of interests that are difficult to overcome and fundamentally infringe on the basic and paramount obligations of attorneys to their clients,” said Umberg, who is an attorney.

The State Bar did not indicate when it would vote for or against the proposed plan to create a paraprofessional program.