- Quickdraw McLaw
- 16 Comments
- 160 Views
The California Bar is considering proposals that would allow nonlawyer “legal technicians” to offer legal advice and also allow lawyers to own law firms with nonlawyers. [ABA Journal] What do you think of this idea? Is it feasible and will it ever happen here?
The last thing I want is to get direction on case management from a non-attorney. What a nightmare bind that would be for both attorneys and clients.
Ok, let's play this out. Non-attorney has ownership interest law firm. Law firm attorneys are then employees of the non-lawyer. The non-lawyer owner now exerts influence over the work, advice and decisions of lawyers. We are already almost there with in house PI defense firms, and some of you know how that affects the quality of work. Now imagine Clio, Avvo or LegalZoom as your boss.
Oh yeah… Throw "legal technicians" into the mix and the salary of a lawyer in this kind of firm will then be $15.00 hour. What many have missed is that the "legal technicians" can and probably will be offshore India or Philippines companies that now do a lot of grunt work for big NY firms.
What about access to justice? If the folks making those comments on this blog today REALLY believe what they are saying, they can base their legal fees on the client's ability to pay. I doubt that they are that sincere.
It happens already. We just are ignoring the realities and exigencies of legal life these days.
Anyone who doesn't like this – do you REALLY talk to people about what it is to hire a lawyer? Real people cannot afford lawyers this is just reality. Working people should not be forced to handle legal problems themselves due to a lack of affordable options.
9:16 – Your point is well taken for things like wills and basic contracts. We already have LegalZoom. It won't work for court appearances though. The cost of hiring a lawyer for a court appearance is one of the few checks that keep our already overtaxed courts on their feet. So are we heading toward something like solicitors and barristers? It reminds me of MDs and PAs in the medical field.
YES, have people use legal zoom. Its forms are so crappy, they keep litigators in business. Seriously horrible contracts.
Keep poor people out of court! More barriers to obtaining legal services!
I anticipate that A.I. will do more to make legal services accessible to the public than rule changes. I also think A.I. will make lawyers more profitable and efficient. Right now, I bill at $350 an hour. Only about 3-5% of the population can afford to hire me, I would guess. With A.I., I will be able to maintain my rates but will be able to serve a much greater percentage of the population. Other professions will be decimated by A.I. I think ours will benefit, as will the public. Let A.I. run its course, no need for rule changes.
If you're going to maintain your $350 / hour rate, how is AI going to allow you to serve a much greater percentage of the population?
I think AI (actually, it's not even AI, it's just basic conditionals) could help with simple things like rental agreements, basic wills, etc. Think TurboTax, but for legal matters. I'm sure there already are such things out there. Maybe throw in a brief review by a "technician" or a lawyer for a sanity check.
Let's be serious here. The purpose of the introduction of AI into the legal industry isn't to make lawyers more efficient. It's to cut them out of the equation all together, so that LegalZoom gets the fee. The people driving this aren't lawyers, judges, "access to justice" types, etc. It is the tech guys who want to be able to charge for dispensing legal advice without the hassle of actually knowing the law or being accountable for wrong advice.
11:06: I totally agree. California's proposals I think partly address this, to allow it but with some sort of oversight / regulation.
Let's rise above and NOT be another California. Clients deserve more than non-lawyer "legal technicians." Do those "legal technicians" have professional liability insurance? Legal malpractice claims will go up. Cha-ching!
Lots of clients cannot afford a lawyer at all. If you want to prevent something like this from happening here, go take a pro bono case.
California over-regulates everything yet thinks its okay to be all Wild West with the law. The notarios must be behind this…
Kim Kardashian
Viewpoint from a non-lawyer. I think this is really two different issues and that's how I feel they should be approached.
The legal technician idea is fraught with problems if we're just talking about someone with little more than the same training as a paralegal. If this is more along the lines of an MD/PA concept, then maybe, just maybe, it might be worth considering, but only of the technician is required to work for an attorney and what they are permitted to do is heavily restricted.
Publicly traded firms have existed in several Australian and European jurisdictions for a number of years. That said, I have no idea what the outcome has been, but at least there is body of data to examine,