American law schools can help create the next generation of licensed legal service providers while preserving professional standards
Key highlights:
-
-
-
The limits of the current system and good intentions — While the justice gap is not the fault of legal educators, their good intentions alone cannot close a systemic gap that requires new models of training and delivery designed for the long term.
-
A healthcare model for legal services is needed — Just as the healthcare industry relies on physicians, nurses, and physician assistants, the justice system needs a wider spectrum of trained and regulated legal providers; and American law schools are best positioned to educate, license, and oversee them.
-
States prove the model works — Alaska, Utah, and Arizona have already developed programs that train and certify non-lawyer legal service providers to help individuals navigate courts and address common legal issues, offering a replicable framework for those states willing to open regulatory doors.
-
-
Our nation’s healthcare system has wisely evolved past being one built on doctors alone. Yet in the legal industry, access to services remains largely tethered to a lawyer-only model that leaves millions of people unable to secure the help they need. Every day, tenants face eviction without representation, parents navigate custody disputes alone, and workers struggle to secure employment benefits or resolve workplace disputes because they cannot pay for legal counsel.
Legal professionals need to work together to create a broader, smarter, and more efficient legal workforce that can meet the public’s legal needs while maintaining the United States’ current legal standards of excellence. American law schools are best positioned to lead this effort; however, they will need to partner with regulators to educate, license, and oversee new categories of legal service providers who, like nurses and physicians’ assistants, can help expand the public’s access to critical support.
Preserving excellence while expanding access
American legal education has long been the global gold standard, producing leaders in law, politics, and business. Its rigorous curriculum, emphasis on critical thinking, and commitment to developing practical problem-solving skills have established a framework that many systems around the world aspire to emulate.
While meaningful innovations have taken place in legal education over the years, many are best characterized as refinements to the existing model rather than significant reforms. For example, curricular options today are more likely to include a wider variety of subject areas and teaching methods, however, most US legal education is still delivered through an in-person, full-time, three-year post-graduate Juris Doctor (JD) degree. While the overall quality of American legal education is exceptional, it is not filling our nation’s need for justice work.
The consequences are increasingly difficult to ignore. Low-income Americans receive no or insufficient legal help for 92% of their substantial civil legal problems, according to the Legal Services Corp.’s The Justice Gap report. As a result, in many court systems, self-represented litigants have become the norm rather than the exception, whether the legal challenge involves housing, consumer debt, or family stability.
This is not the fault of legal educators, who often go above and beyond to help bridge the gap through the provision of free legal services and other efforts. Even so, it is the responsibility of legal educators to assist in designing and supporting new models of training and legal delivery to systemically narrow the gap for the long term.
Innovation beyond fine-tuning
Addressing this persistent and growing issue will require more than fine tuning. Instead, to meet the demands of a society increasingly characterized by inequality, social division, and complex interdisciplinary problems requires change that will better prepare our justice system for the future.
To get there, legal educators may have to sacrifice one part of what has long defined them: homogeneity. While a degree from a more elite law school is certainly rewarded in the entry-level employment market, the legal education provided at most of the accredited law schools in the US is more alike than different.
For law schools to help close the justice gap, increasing institutional pluralism is essential. Law schools can and should differentiate themselves by developing tailored solutions to address specific justice challenges within their reach. For example, Medical-Legal Partnership Clinics at Rutgers Law School and Yale Law School help low-income clients address legal issues that can impact their health outcomes. And students at the University of Arkansas School of Law provide assistance to small businesses, nonprofits, and rural municipalities that often cannot afford legal counsel though the university’s Community and Rural Enterprise Development Clinic.
To be sure, law schools cannot and should not do this alone. Law school deans have rightly encouraged legal education’s accreditation process to improve regulatory flexibility and promote responsible change. As a result, many schools are developing high-quality online programs that offer both access and excellence. These programs may expand the pool of lawyers over time, but they remain largely focused on JD education rather than the broader workforce that will be needed to improve the public’s legal health.
A framework for responsible expansion
To enhance access to justice, the legal profession needs to move beyond “educating lawyers” alone and expand into teaching law more broadly. The traditional JD degree will continue to be vital to our legal system; but just as healthcare relies on physicians, nurses, physician assistants and other licensed professionals, the justice system needs a wider spectrum of trained and regulated providers.
To get there, states must open their doors to a wider range of legal services providers. Unfortunately, many states — often for political reasons — continue to resist allowing limited-service legal providers to handle routine but still important legal needs.
Models for this approach already exist. Alaska, Utah, and Arizona each have developed programs that train and certify non-lawyer legal service providers to help individuals navigate courts, understand their rights, and address common legal issues involving housing, family law, public benefits, and debt.
If state courts and legislators are serious about closing the justice gap, they should begin by opening their regulatory doors to these alternative legal providers, while providing responsible licensing and oversight mechanisms in collaboration with law schools in their state. If those doors are open, law schools can and will step through. Many law schools already have innovative master’s degree programs that are aimed at law-adjacent fields such as government contracts, human resources, compliance, and more. These non-lawyer educational programs can easily be tailored for alternative legal providers.
Keeping legal education in the hands of American law schools will properly balance access and excellence, ensuring the public continues to be served by qualified practitioners. Law schools have the skilled faculty, ethical underpinnings, and institutional infrastructure that’s needed to train and oversee the next generation of justice workers.
A robust justice system needs a full spectrum of professionals to meet society’s legal needs, much as our healthcare system relies on a range of trained providers. Until we build such a structure, the justice gap will remain exactly where it sits today, to the detriment of many citizens.
You can find more about the challenges facing law schools and legal education here
