1932

Abstract

Researchers have launched a new era of studies exploring relationships between legal services regulation and access to justice. These scholarly developments respond to recent changes in how Anglo-American jurisdictions regulate the practice of law, changing who can make money from the practice of law, who can engage in it, and who can direct and control it. Often described as projects of deregulation, most are actually acts of reregulation. This article reviews empirical evidence of the relationship between these changes and access to justice. While evidence suggests some promise for increasing access, particularly through lawyerless legal services, most of these projects are in early stages and their impacts on access to justice will take some time to understand. Because much remains to explore, we also offer a research agenda for this emerging subfield.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-050520-101425
2022-10-18
2024-05-20
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/lawsocsci/18/1/annurev-lawsocsci-050520-101425.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-050520-101425&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

Literature Cited

  1. Abel RL. 2011. Lawyers in the Dock Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
  2. Albiston CR, Sandefur RL. 2013. Expanding the empirical study of access to justice. Wis. Law Rev. 2013:101–20
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Ariz. Judic. Counc 2021. Legal paraprofessionals (LP): questions and answers https://www.azcourts.gov/accesstolegalservices/Questions-and-Answers/lp
  4. Arnold BL, Kay FM 1995. Social capital, violations of trust and the vulnerability of isolates: the social organization of law practice and professional self-regulation. Int. J. Sociol. Law 23:4321–46
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Aulakh S, Loughrey J. 2018. Regulating law firms from the inside: the role of compliance officers for legal practice in England and Wales. J. Law Soc. 45:2254–81
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Boon A, Whyte A. 2019. Lawyer disciplinary processes: an empirical study of solicitors’ misconduct cases in England and Wales in 2015. Legal Stud. 39:3455–78
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Cappelletti M, Garth B 1977. Access to justice: the newest wave in the worldwide movement to make rights effective. Buff. Law Rev. 27:181–292
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Carpenter AE, Steinberg JK, Shanahan CF, Mark A. 2018. Studying the “new” civil judges. Wis. Law Rev. 2018:249–86
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Chambliss E. 2019a. Evidence-based lawyer regulation. Wash. Univ. Law Rev. 97:297–350
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Chambliss E. 2019b. Marketing legal assistance. Daedalus 148:198–105
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Clarke T, Sandefur RL. 2017. Preliminary evaluation of the Washington State Limited License Legal Technician Program Rep., Am. Bar Found. Chicago:
  12. Clarke T, Sandefur RL. 2021. Standards for regulatory reform assessment metrics Rep., Natl. Cent. State Courts Williamsburg, VA:
  13. Competition Mark. Auth. (CMA) 2016. Legal services market study: final report. Rep., CMA London:
  14. Competition Mark. Auth. (CMA) 2020. Review of the legal services market study in England and Wales: an assessment of the implementation and impact of the CMA's market study recommendations. Rep., CMA London:
  15. Courts Trib. Judic 2010. Practice guidance: McKenzie Friends (civil and family courts) Guidance, Courts Trib. Judic London: https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/JCO/Documents/Guidance/mckenzie-friends-practice-guidance-july-2010.pdf
  16. DeStefano M. 2013. Compliance and claim funding: testing the borders of lawyers' monopoly and the unauthorized practice of law. Fordham Law Rev. 82:2961–94
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Di Giovanni A, Bercovich L. 2021. Legal empowerment in informal settlements: lessons on using the law to overcome urban poor exclusion and poverty in the global South. Int. Law Politics 54:93–151
    [Google Scholar]
  18. DuPont CJ. 2018. Licensed paralegal practitioners. Utah Bar J. 31:316–18
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Engstrom NF. 2013. Attorney advertising and the contingency fee cost paradox. Stanford Law Rev. 65:633–96
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Garoupa N, Markovic M. 2021. Deregulation and the lawyers' cartel. Univ. Pa. J. Int. Law. In press
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Garth BG 2021. Politics and legal politics: access to justice in context. Desigualdades globais e justiça social: interfaces teóricas, acesso à justiça e democracia RL Igreja, C Negri 190–213 Brasília: Flacso Brasil
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Genn H. 1999. Paths to Justice: What People Do and Think About Going to Law London: Hart Publ.
  23. Genn H, Genn Y. 1989. The effectiveness of representation at tribunals Rep., Lord Chancell. Dep., Queen Mary Coll., Univ. London London:
  24. Goldberger AS. 1991. A Course in Econometrics Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press
  25. Goodwin L, Maru V. 2017. What do we know about legal empowerment? Mapping the evidence. Hague J. Rule Law 9:1157–94
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Gorman EH, Sandefur RL. 2011.. “ Golden age,” quiescence, and revival: how the sociology of professions became the study of knowledge-based work. Work Occup. 38:3275–302
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Hadfield GK. 2017. Rules for a Flat World: Why Humans Invented Law and How to Reinvent It for a Complex Global Economy Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
  28. Hadfield GK. 2022. Legal markets. J. Econ. Lit. In press
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Hadfield GK, Heine J. 2016. Life in the law-thick world: the legal resource landscape for ordinary Americans. Beyond Elite Law: Access to Civil Justice in America S Estreicher, J Radice 21–52 Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Hadfield GK, Rhode DL. 2015. How to regulate legal services to promote access, innovation, and the quality of lawyering. Hastings Law J. 67:1191–224
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Hague Inst. Innov. Law (HiiL), Inst. Adv. Am. Legal Syst. (IAALS) 2021. Justice needs and satisfaction in the United States of America 2021: legal problems in daily life Rep., Hague Inst. Innov. Law The Hague, Neth:.
  32. Hill LL. 2017. Alternative business structures for lawyers and law firms: a view from the global legal services market. Or. Rev. Int. Law 18:135–53
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Johnsen J. 1999. Studies of legal needs and legal aid in a market context. The Transformations of Legal Aid: Comparative and Historical Studies F Regan, A Paterson, T Goriely, D Fleming 205–32 Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Kalajdzic J. 2014. Alternative business structure research Rep., Ont. Trial Lawyers Assoc. Burlington, Ont., Can: https://otlablog.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/Dr-Kalajdzic-Study-on-NLO.pdf
  35. Kritzer HM. 1998. Legal Advocacy: Lawyers and Nonlawyers at Work Ann Arbor: Univ. Mich. Press
  36. Legal Serv. Board 2017. Prices of individual consumer legal services 2017: main report. Rep., Legal Serv. Board London:
  37. Legal Serv. Board 2021. Quality indicators in legal services Res. Rep., Legal Serv. Board London: https://legalservicesboard.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/LSB-Public-Panel-Quality-Indictors-Research-Report-Accessible.pdf
  38. Levin LC, Zozula C, Siegelman P. 2015. The questionable character of the bar's character and fitness inquiry. Law Soc. Inq. 40:151–85
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Licens. Lawyer 2021. Licensed paralegal practitioners https://www.licensedlawyer.org/Find-a-Lawyer/Licensed-Paralegal-Practitioners
  40. Mayson S. 2020. Reforming legal services: regulation beyond the echo chambers Rep., Cent. Ethics Law, Univ. Coll. London London:
  41. Moorhead R. 2014. Precarious professionalism: some empirical and behavioural perspectives on lawyers. Curr. Legal Probl. 67:1447–81
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Moorhead R, Sherr A, Webley L, Rogers S, Sherr L et al. 2001. Quality and cost: final report on the contracting of Civil, Non-Family Advice and Assistance Pilot Rep., Station. Off. London:
  43. Moxley L. 2015. Zooming past the monopoly: a consumer rights approach to reforming the lawyer's monopoly and improving access to justice. Harvard Law Policy Rev. 9:553–84
    [Google Scholar]
  44. Off. Legal Serv. Innov 2021. What we do https://utahinnovationoffice.org/about/what-we-do/
  45. Off. Legal Serv. Innov 2022. Innovation office activity report: March 2022 Rep., Off. Legal Serv. Innov. Salt Lake City, UT:
  46. Paralegal Standing Comm 2012. 2012 Report to Convocation: November 22, 2012 Rep., Law Soc. Up. Can. Tor., Can:.
  47. Parker C, Gordon T, Mark S 2010. Regulating law firm ethics management: an empirical assessment of an innovation in regulation of the legal profession in New South Wales. J. Law Soc. 37:3466–500
    [Google Scholar]
  48. Pleasence P, Balmer NJ. 2019. Justice & the capability to function in society. Daedalus 148:1140–49
    [Google Scholar]
  49. Poppe EST, Rachlinski JJ. 2015. Do lawyers matter? The effect of legal representation in civil disputes. Pepperdine Law Rev. 43:881–944
    [Google Scholar]
  50. Regan F, Paterson A, Goriely T, Fleming D, eds. 1999. The Transformation of Legal Aid: Comparative and Historical Studies Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
  51. Regan MC Jr 2008. Lawyers, symbols, and money: outside investment in law firms. Pa. State Int. Law Rev. 27:407–38
    [Google Scholar]
  52. Rhode DL. 2005. Pro Bono in Principle and in Practice: Public Service and the Professions Redwood City, CA: Stanford Univ. Press
  53. Rhode DL. 2018. Virtue and the law: the good moral character requirement in occupational licensing, bar regulation, and immigration proceedings. Law Soc. Inq. 43:31027–58
    [Google Scholar]
  54. Rigertas LA. 2009. Lobbying and litigating against legal bootleggers: the role of the organized bar in the expansion of the courts' inherent powers in the early twentieth century. Calif. West. Law Rev. 46:3
    [Google Scholar]
  55. Robinson N. 2016. When lawyers don't get all the profits: non-lawyer ownership, access, and professionalism. Geo. J. Legal Ethics 29:1
    [Google Scholar]
  56. Rostain T. 2017. Robots versus lawyers: a user-centered approach. Georgetown J. Legal Ethics 30:559
    [Google Scholar]
  57. Rostain T. 2019. Techno-optimism & access to the legal system. Daedalus 148:193–97
    [Google Scholar]
  58. Sandefur RL. 2007. The importance of doing nothing: everyday problems and responses of inaction. Transforming Lives: Law and Social Process P Pleasence, A Buck, N Balmer 112–32 London: Station. Off. Books
    [Google Scholar]
  59. Sandefur RL. 2008. Fulcrum point of equal access to justice: legal and nonlegal institutions of remedy. Loyola L.A. Law Rev. 42:949–78
    [Google Scholar]
  60. Sandefur RL. 2012. Money isn't everything: understanding moderate income households’ use of lawyers’ services. Middle Income Access to Justice A Duggan, L Sossin, M Trebilcock 222–45 Toronto: Univ. Tor. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  61. Sandefur RL. 2015a. Elements of professional expertise: understanding relational and substantive expertise through lawyers’ impact. Am. Sociol. Rev. 80:5909–33
    [Google Scholar]
  62. Sandefur RL. 2015b. What we know and need to know about the legal needs of the public. S.C. Law Rev. 67:443–60
    [Google Scholar]
  63. Sandefur RL. 2019a. Access to what?. Daedalus 148:149–55
    [Google Scholar]
  64. Sandefur RL 2019b. Legal tech for nonlawyers: report of the survey of US legal technologies Rep., Am. Bar Found. Chicago:
  65. Sandefur RL. 2020. Legal advice from nonlawyers: consumer demand, provider quality, and public harms. Stanford J. Civ. Rights Civ. Lib. 16:283–314
    [Google Scholar]
  66. Sandefur RL. 2021. Access to justice. Research Handbook on Modern Legal Realism S Talesh, E Mertz, H Klug 324–35 Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publ.
    [Google Scholar]
  67. Sandefur RL, Clarke TM, Teufel J. 2021. Seconds to impact? Regulatory reform, new kinds of legal services, and increased access to justice. Law Contemp. Probl. 84:369–80
    [Google Scholar]
  68. Sandefur RL, Teufel J. 2020. Assessing America's access to civil justice crisis. UC Irvine Law Rev. 11:753–80
    [Google Scholar]
  69. Semple N. 2013. Access to justice: Is legal services regulation blocking the path?. Int. J. Legal Prof. 20:3267–83
    [Google Scholar]
  70. Semple N, Pearce RG, Knake RN. 2013. A taxonomy of lawyer regulation: how contrasting theories of regulation explain the divergent regulatory regimes in Australia, England and Wales, and North America. Legal Ethics 16:2258–83
    [Google Scholar]
  71. Shapiro SP. 2002. Tangled Loyalties: Conflict of Interest in Legal Practice Ann Arbor: Univ. Mich. Press
  72. Sklar T, Taouk Y, Studdert D, Spittal M, Paterson R, Bismark M. 2019. Characteristics of lawyers who are subject to complaints and misconduct findings. J. Empir. Legal Stud. 16:2318–42
    [Google Scholar]
  73. Sommerlad H, Clarke T, Gustafsson S, Herant J, Holvast N et al. 2022. Paralegals and the casualisation of legal labour markets. Lawyers in 21st-Century Societies, Vol. 2: Comparisons and Theories RL Abel, H Sommerlad, O Hammerslev, pp. 271--300 London: Hart Publ.
    [Google Scholar]
  74. Steinberg JK. 2017. Informal, inquisitorial, and accurate: an empirical look at a problem-solving housing court. Law Soc. Inq. 42:41058–90
    [Google Scholar]
  75. Stephen FH. 2013. Lawyers, Markets and Regulation Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publ.
  76. Stephen FH, Love JH. 1999. Regulation of the legal profession. . In Encyclopedia of Law and Economics G De Geest, p. 4579 Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publ.
    [Google Scholar]
  77. Terry LS. 2013. Putting the legal profession's monopoly on the practice of law in a global context. Fordham Law Rev. 82:2903–37
    [Google Scholar]
  78. Trabucco L. 2018. What are we waiting for? It's time to regulate paralegals in Canada. Windsor Yearb. Access Justice 35:149–76
    [Google Scholar]
  79. Trabucco LD. 2020. The regulation of paralegals in Ontario: Increased access to justice? PhD Thesis, York Univ., Tor., Can.
  80. US Dep. Justice 2021. Recognized organizations and accredited representatives roster by state and city https://www.justice.gov/eoir/recognized-organizations-and-accredited-representatives-roster-state-and-city
  81. Utah Work. Group Regul. Reform 2019. Narrowing the access-to-justice gap by reimaging regulation Rep., Off. Legal Serv. Innov. Salt Lake City: https://www.utahbar.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/FINAL-Task-Force-Report.pdf
  82. World Justice Proj 2019. Global insights on access to justice: findings from the World Justice Population Poll in 101 countries Rep., World Justice Proj. Washington, DC:
  83. Young KM, Billings KR. 2020. Legal consciousness and cultural capital. Law Soc. Rev. 54:133–65
    [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-050520-101425
Loading
  • Article Type: Review Article
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error