Hi everyone!

Hi John!

sorry I missed first part of meeting. which regulations are you talking about specifically?

We will talk about the regs next - but assuming no regs, how do we solve this access to justice problem

ty

Fascinating

how about a trusted marketplace where people seeking hep can find it at a transparent price

more investment in translating processes / laws into pro se friendly materials.

I propose: abolish most criminal laws, thereby freeing up supply

We have been preparing pro se materials for years, and people are still not getting access. And I think recent research shows, at least in L/T context, that people with lawyers, and certainly advocates, get much better results.

I am in Texas

NYC

PA

Indiana

hi everyone, connecting from Brazil here

WA

Canada

From the UK, but have worked with asylum seekers in Geneva, Switzerland

Chicago, IL

Arusha, Tanzania, but I’m an American with an American law degree

Philadelphia, PA

Pennsylvania

New York

Oxford, UK

North Carolina

North Carolina

Calling from UK but keen to widen the discussion to a more global perspective, particularly Africa

New York, NY

Maine

NY

Rhode Island

Illinois

Hi Bridget and Stacy! Here in Durham, NC.

San Jose, CA.

Mary Helen McNeal, New York

NYC - Queens specifically. It's the most diverse county in the US. clinic assists consumers being sued for debt. Pervasive abuse by collection lawyers and even judges. We do have a limited scope program in place in NYC

Buenos Aires, Argentina

Calling in from Viña del Mar, Chile but I am a US attorney.

Why totally eliminate the rule that prohibits partnering wiht non-lawyers instead of creating exceptions or modifications?

What about looking to other forms of innovative legal service delivery such as collaborative divorce which is trying to develop pro bono models and partners with other professionals? Also to deal with issues of domestic violence.

Also thinking about reaching out to medical legal partnerships to borrow from medical models the utilize PA’s an nurse practitioners for service delivery?

Neat idea

Gina - another way to look at Rule 5.4 is to ask, why have a categorical prohibition on lawyers sharing fees/ownership with others when there is no evidence that these sorts of economic restrictions protect the public or even support a lawyer's independent judgment?

I disagree that it doesn't affect independent judgment of lawyers

One of the mistakes regulators make is to write rules on what is allowed. That is the wrong way around. We should allow everything that is permissable under competition and consumer laws - and go further with more restrictive rules only where we have real evidence of harm

It would be good to have more scientific evidence of the effects of legal regulation. Do such studies exist in the professional literature?

There is plenty in England & Wales. Google Legal Services Board research and you find a great repository

Neat

Here is the California Task Force Report (it's an attachement to the memo) https://board.calbar.ca.gov/docs/agendaItem/Public/agendaitem1000025644.pdf

VA has a certified/required training program for all advocates, lawyers and nonlawyers

Another example, for what its worth, of people who are not lawyers (in the US) helping with legal issues - patent agents

Yes, Duke started the first Physicians Assistants school :)

Here is the Arizona Task Force Report: https://www.azcourts.gov/Portals/74/LSTF/Report/LSTFReportRecommendationsRED10042019.pdf?ver=2019-10-07-084849-750

thanks all, have to leave early... lovely to join the conversation. see you online later this week, Claire, Skoll Foundation, cwathen@skoll.org

And here is Utah's set of recommendations, including explanation of the regulatory sandbox: https://iaals.du.edu/sites/default/files/documents/publications/ut_reg_reform_final.pdf

For more about VIISTA, visit immigrantadvocate.villanova.edu

A blog I wrote back in January And it is mor eurgent in current health crisis https://www.passmoreconsulting.co.uk/re-regulating-legal-services-in-the-us

Other examples of online dispute resolution:1) https://www.courtinnovations.com/2) https://coparenter.com/3) https://www.fairclaims.com/

And the State of Utah built it's own online dispute resolution platform - being piloted in three counties now for small claims debt collection.

Yes! Thanks for adding, Stacy!

I cant see the slides

To learn more about discrimination in access to legal identity documentation in Kenya, see this policy brief: https://namati.org/resources/vices-of-discrimination-impacts-of-vetting-delays-in-issuance-of-id-cards-kenya/ - which includes analysis from community paralegal case data

I think online dispute platforms are suitable for disputes that are limited to money damages or are otherwise lack critical factual/legal disputes, lack substantial procedural issues (like lack of service of process, or "sewer service"), and in which the parties have relatively parity of power. These models, as has been said, originated in consumer/vendor disputes. Many legal issues can't be equated with returning a broken household item, etc.

UK parking tribunal is all on line and asynchronous. Works brilliantly with real judges on a simple platform.

In NY, we can resolve parking tickets online, and I agree that works well. It is also optional.

Here is an online resource guide on developing community paralegal programs: https://namati.org/resources/developing-a-community-paralegal-program/ 

And another specifically on recognition, regulation, and financing of community paralegals: https://namati.org/resources/community-paralegals-recognition-and-financing/

So VIISTA focuses solely on immigration correct?

In NY, advocates for people who are lower-income, unsophisticated, etc have identified numerous challenges to implemention ODR. In rural NY, many clients have rejected processes for online intake. They want to talk to someone. There are also technology issues.

To help track the regulatory changes underway in the US, the ABA Center for Innovation (where I work) has created this resource, intended especially for audiences like this:http://legalinnovationregulatorysurvey.info/

Yes they are!

VIISTA is a certificate program to train immigrant advocates

I think this is also a matter of what lawyers want to do - do lawyers really want to do these tasks that can be automated or concentrate on more interesting issues?

IAALS also has a fabulous resource:https://iaals.du.edu/knowledge-center

Rights are often very contentious, and possibly subjective.

Sarah, I agree. I also think the fees lawyers charge for tasks that are essentially automated are prohibitive.

A similar crisis to now in London 1666 - the Great Fire. They relaxed guild regulation because they needed the city rebuilt. They never managed to get the restrictions back again. https://www.passmoreconsulting.co.uk/law-firms-snub-reform-at-their-own-peril

But I agree, people, including non-lawyers should have more freedom to advocate back-and-forth re what their rights are

The genie is out of the bottle, Crispin. Totally agree.

Regulation of lawyers could conceivably sometimes have a chilling effect on that

We did that in NY

Gina, I would love to have the opportunity to discuss this more with you. Thank you for your perspective. Dealing with a lot of what you raise.

Thank you everyone!

Thanks again, Michele and everyone!

Thank you.

Well done Michele - and thank you so much for invitation to participate

Thank you for the interesting presentation and information!

Excellent and informative.

Thank you. Very informative presentation.

Thanks to you all, from Mary Helen McNeal

This is Janet Heppard in Texas; thanks so much to everyone. This was very informative.

chase.hertel@americanbar.org

Thanks!