The state of Washington is considering a pilot program to evaluate the effects of relaxing restrictions on who can offer legal services. Traditionally, Washington mandates that only licensed attorneys can provide legal services and that law firms must be lawyer-owned. The proposed pilot would temporarily ease those restrictions for select entities, including those operating online or under non-traditional business models, while collecting data to determine the efficacy and risks of such changes.
Washington joins a growing number of states aiming to broaden access to legal services through regulatory reform. Utah initiated a similar regulatory sandbox in 2020, and Arizona eliminated restrictions on non-lawyer ownership of law firms the same year. Lucy Ricca, executive director of Stanford’s Rhode Center on the Legal Profession, and former head of Utah’s sandbox, noted that the U.S. has some of the strictest regulations on legal services globally. She described the current model as outdated and inefficient, arguing that it’s crucial to explore new ways to deliver legal services affordably and efficiently.
Last week, the Washington State Bar Association and the state’s Practice of Law Board released a draft order for the pilot and are soliciting public feedback ahead of a September meeting. The order is expected to be finalized and submitted to the state Supreme Court by the end of the month, following over four years of preparatory work and multiple drafts.
The pilot aims to adopt a data-driven approach to measure whether easing regulations can expand access to justice, provide affordable legal services, and identify any potential consumer harms. Each participating entity will be required to propose a specific hypothesis and a study to test the regulatory reform it seeks to implement. The pilot will run until two years’ worth of data is collected for the most recent participant.
Some point to the necessity of regulatory changes to reduce legal costs and increase service accessibility. Andrew Perlman, dean of Suffolk University Law School, emphasized the benefits of allowing lawyers to partner with technologists or accept investments, which current rules prohibit. Conversely, critics argue that such reforms could undermine lawyers’ professional independence. They cite the risk of conflicts of interest where non-lawyer ownership might prioritize firm revenue over client interests.
Stephen Younger, senior counsel at Withersworldwide, suggested that technological solutions, like automated tools for eviction filings, could be a less intrusive means of expanding access to legal services without violating traditional practice rules. However, such tools also come with risks, especially when there is no lawyer to verify the accuracy of automated advice.
As technology becomes more integral to legal service delivery, the Washington Practice of Law Board noted that unregulated public use would likely increase. This underscores the importance of regulatory frameworks to oversee such tools, strengthening the case for sandbox models. Andrew Perlman added that state regulation would ultimately benefit the public by governing these innovations.
For more details, the original report is available at Bloomberg Law.