2019 NLADA Annual Conference-Innovative Justice

For centuries, the bar has insisted that only a lawyer can engage in the practice of law: people shouldn’t perform tasks for which they lack the needed expertise. But, does the bar's claim of preventing harm go too far? Do the UPL rules prevent people from getting the help they need from the advocates they want? Do UPL rules chill advocates or computers from offering help even when the tasks performed are not "practice of law"? Do UPL rules prevent people or computers from performing tasks they can do well, even if these might be "the practice of law"? Are there best policies and practices that would protect librarians, social workers, organizers, caseworkers, navigators, "trained advocates," legal aid paralegals, and possibly also certain computer software automated forms and other applications – especially in nonprofit settings (or, only in such settings) – from the UPL prohibitions? Is California going to change its UPL rules this year? Join the discussion about the pros and cons of the many models being proposed for UPL rules reform. Reform efforts are currently moving forward across the country, often led by for-profit tech companies under the banner of access to justice. But which reforms are good for people in need and what would truly expand access to justice?