California Lawmakers Ignore Data in Calls to Restrict the Expansion of Legal Services — from iaals.du.edu
Excerpt:
Earlier this week, two California lawmakers spoke up about these issues. Cheryl Miller, writing for Law.com’s The Recorder, reports: “The chairs of California’s two legislative judiciary committees this week accused the state bar of ‘divert[ing] its attention from its core mission of protecting the public’ by pursuing proposals to allow nonlawyers to offer a limited range of legal services.”
California Supreme Court Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye called the criticism “not surprising,” and we would agree. After all, it is the same message we’ve heard time and again from opponents to any real, impactful change within the legal profession. And the assumptions underlying that message have been discredited by our organization and many other scholars, researchers, and even regulators in other countries. So it is frustrating just how widespread and misleading opponent claims can be.
In response to CA Judiciary letter’s concern about encouraging legal innovation, Professor David Engstrom, CLP’s Lucy Ricca, former LSC President Jim Sandman, Prof. Rebecca Sandefur and others: The A2J crisis is “too urgent to put on the back burner.” https://t.co/Uzo6lej0ti
— SLS Legal Profession (@StanfordCLP) December 17, 2021
Professor @DavidEngstrom5, co-director of @StanfordCLP, discusses the urgent access-to-justice crisis currently gripping CA and the CA State Bar’s Closing the Justice Gap working group. https://t.co/zpbPlwBIhO
— StanfordLaw (@StanfordLaw) December 17, 2021