An audacious endeavour to defend free speech and increase access to expertise is at the heart of a federal lawsuit filed recently by a North Carolina nonprofit. In a bold move that might have repercussions for legal practitioners nationwide, the North Carolina Justice for All Project and two of its paralegals filed the lawsuit, claiming the state’s ban on unauthorized practice of law (UPL) amounts to a restraint on free speech in violation of the First Amendment. The law currently prohibits anyone not possessing full attorney credentials from offering legal advice.
The North Carolina Justice for All Project – comprising five certified paralegals – bridges the “access to justice gap” according to the federal complaint. Their endeavours have been stifled by the state’s stringent bans, severely limiting their ability to offer free legal services and forcing a focus on advocacy efforts instead.
One of these efforts centered on the proposal to establish legal technicians – a new breed of service providers, able to impart legal advice to low and middle-income residents in high-need areas like family and landlord-tenant law. However, the proposal languished without result, prompting the group’s ambitious shift in strategy.
Failure also met a similar proposal made to the North Carolina General Assembly, which brought about the group’s decision to file this federal lawsuit.
The ban on UPL, per the lawsuit, has forced the plaintiffs into self-censorship, fearing prosecution, and prevented them from aiding those in need – including the simple task of filling out court forms, which often poses an insurmountable hurdle to regular citizens due to the complex legal jargon. Under the current law, anyone not a licensed attorney found offering legal advice, be it paid or for free, could face criminal charges and even jail time.
The plaintiffs seek a declaration that North Carolina’s UPL ban breaches the First Amendment, as well as an injunction to bar its enforcement. Counsel for the plaintiffs state that advice on technical legal topics holds the same constitutional protections, under the First Amendment, as any other form of speech.
There has been no immediate word on counsel for the defending state Attorney General, and the case – filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina – awaits further progress.