At the ABA House of Delegates August meeting, the ABA Commission on the Future of Legal Services presented a panel discussion on “Issues of Concern” that was “meant to be provocative.” The reader comments posted online in response to the Aug. 3, 2015, online ABA Journal article about the program indicate that the panel succeeded in that goal. The presentation led off with comments from the moderator, who suggested that many self-represented litigants do not identify cost as the primary problem – rather, they simply do not believe lawyers can help them. The reaction to the program that followed suggests that message was not received.
Diane Diel, U.W. 1976, of Diane S. Diel S.C., practices family law in Milwaukee. She is a former chair and director of the Collaborative Family Law Council of Wisconsin and a former president and director of the International Academy of Collaborative Professionals. She is a past president of the State Bar of Wisconsin.
During the program, AVVO CEO Mark Britton declared that lawyers should do away with unauthorized practice of law (UPL) rules because they keep innovators out. Britton claimed that 7.5 million people have posted questions on the AVVO website, and 34 percent of those people believe that lawyers have nothing to offer. Additionally, California and Washington judges reported on their innovative programs to help unrepresented individuals in family law matters.
Clearly, AVVO hits a nerve. Lawyer readers exploded with angry posts complaining about AVVO and condemning the ABA for inviting AVVO to the conversation. The readers barely seemed to notice that the presiding judge of the Los Angeles Superior Court is advocating that “procedural rules” be done away with and family law cases be completed with the help of Turbo Tax-like computer programs.
The State Bar of Washington’s unique solution – a limited license legal technician (LLLT) program “for now” limited to family law cases – did not draw much attention either. The program comes with its own set of ethics rules and educational and experience requirements (3,000 hours of clinical training, for example). Although training is required, these “legal technicians” who will advise, research, and draft for clients are not lawyers.
As professionals and business people, we won’t succeed in helping our potential clients have the chance to get help and advice from a lawyer until we find innovative ways to deliver that value.
AVVO is not the story. The story is that now, after years of Wisconsin lawyers railing against UPL, the State Bar of Washington is creating and regulating it. And Turbo Tax-like programs for family law? While these programs are only for family law, can real estate, estate planning, probate, or other areas be far behind?
Many lawyers still rally around the notion that we are not in business – we are a profession. But, as professionals and business people, we won’t succeed in helping our potential clients have the chance to get help and advice from a lawyer until we find innovative ways to deliver that value. We must learn and offer a variety of options to adapt to the market while still offering value in legal services. We may or may not deserve it, but the recent ABA program illustrates there will likely be more programs diminishing even further the role and the perception of value of all lawyers, not just family lawyers.
It is time for lawyers to hear the message and start leading client-centered professional and practice changes, not just reacting to the messenger.
