Rethinking the Professional Monopoly: Licensing Reform for Legal Services
Rebecca L. Sandefur · Arizona State University, School of Social and Family Dynamics · 2015
Abstract
This article presents empirical evidence challenging the assumption that non-lawyer legal service providers necessarily deliver lower-quality services than licensed attorneys. Drawing on studies of lay advocates, document preparers, and limited-license legal technicians, Sandefur argues that the legal profession's monopoly on legal services is not justified by consumer protection concerns in many routine legal matters. The article proposes a risk-based framework for licensing reform that would permit non-lawyers to provide certain legal services—such as assistance with routine government forms, uncontested family law matters, and landlord-tenant disputes—while maintaining licensing requirements for complex and high-stakes legal work.
Key Findings
- Non-lawyer providers achieve comparable outcomes to lawyers in many routine legal matters
- The legal profession's monopoly contributes significantly to the access-to-justice gap
- A risk-based licensing framework would expand access while protecting consumers from harm
- Several jurisdictions have successfully implemented limited-license programs for non-lawyers
Related Statutes
- Various state unauthorized practice of law statutes
Related Cases
- Unauthorized Practice of Law Committee v. Parsons Technology (1999)