Unauthorized Practice of Law Policy Toolkit

The legal service landscape for domestic violence survivors provides a stark and illustrative landscape of the ways in which UPL restrictions contribute to the civil justice crisis in America. In the United States, approximately 1 in 4 women and 1 in 10 men (over 10 million adults) experience domestic violence (DV) each year. One of the most pervasive and pressing needs that survivors face when exiting abuse is the need for civil legal help. 98% of low-income households that have recently experienced DV reported experiencing at least one additional civil legal problem in the past year; 87% of low-income households reported experiencing five or more additional civil legal problems. Evidence shows that receiving legal assistance is vital for DV survivors receiving a favorable outcome in court.

But 93% of the civil legal problems experienced by survivors do not receive any or enough legal help.

Both the vast shortfall of free and affordable civil legal services in the US and the siloing of legal services from other social services are at least in part attributable to UPL restrictions, which limit the ability to provide legal services to licensed attorneys. A Gordian knot sits at the center of DV services: DV survivors experience many needs that are intertwined with civil legal needs. Legal help delivers statistically signifcant improvements in case outcomes for survivors and sets them on a stronger, more viable path to exit. However, the DV service organizations best positioned to holistically assist survivors as they exit abuse cannot assist with survivors' civil legal needs due to UPL restrictions, and when survivors are referred out for legal help they are sent into a deep and wide civil legal service gap in which there are far too few affordable or free civil legal services. As a result, survivors navigate the civil justice system alone, or not at all.

A handful of states have begun exploring a potential solution to the justice crisis for DV survivors by re-regulating the practice of law to permit DV service organizations to embed civil legal help, provided by DV advocates, in their service model. These early models that are reforming UPL restrictions as an access to justice strategy raise important design questions about how UPL reform opportunities can best be leveraged for the benefit of disinvested communities living with the civil justice crisis.

The Unauthorized Practice of Law Policy Toolkit Website offers a jurisdiction agnostic open-source UPL restriction and exception database, interactive map, and detailed report to researchers, policy advocates, and state legislators. Using DV as a case study, the Toolkit provides data supporting five research questions: (1) Nationally, what gaps in their ability to help survivors do DV advocates experience when they limit their help to legal information, not legal advice; (2) Do DV advocates think UPL reform and the ability to give limited-scope legal advice as part of their services would be helpful to them and the survivors they serve; (3) What civil legal needs do DV advocates most want/need to advise DV survivors regarding; (4) What additional legal training would DV advocates want and need to feel equipped to give limited-scope legal advice; and (5) What do subject matter experts consider the best practices for lay and licensed legal advocacy for DV survivors, in areas as training/certification, supervision/mentorship, and professional responsibility?

Visit: Unauthorized Practice of Law Policy Toolkit Website

See the Project Brief: Unauthorized Practice of Law Toolkit Project Brief