Innovation & Evolution in the Regulation of Legal Services , End Notes

  1.  Between 2007 and 2012, money spent on legal services by clients in the PeopleLaw sector declined by almost $7 billion while money spent on legal services by business clients increased by $21 billion. Bill Henderson, The Decline of the PeopleLaw Sector (037), Legal Evolution (Nov. 19, 2017), https://www.legalevolution.org/2017/11/decline-peoplelaw-sector-037/.
  2.  These prohibitions are enshrined in the American Bar Association’s Model Rule of Professional Conduct 5.4 and state adaptations.
  3.  See Gillian K. Hadfield & Deborah L. Rhode, How to Regulate Legal Services to Promote Access, Innovation, and the Quality of Lawyering, 67 HASTINGS L.J. 1191, 1192-1203 (2016); Ralph Baxter, Dereliction of Duty: State-Bar Inaction in Response to America’s Access-to-Justice Crisis, 132 YALE L.J. F. note 74 (Oct. 19, 2022), https://www.yalelawjournal.org/forum/dereliction-of-duty.
  4.  The Impact and Effectiveness of Innovate, FINANCIAL CONDUCT AUTHORITY 3-4 (Apr. 2019), https://www.fca.org.uk/publication/research/the-impact-and-effectiveness-of-innovate.pdf.
  5.  Matthew Nicaud, Regulatory “Sandbox” Reforms Advance Across the Nation, Mississippi Center for Public Policy (June 23, 2021). https://mspolicy.org/regulatory-sandbox-reforms-advance-across-the-nation.
  6.  Arizona and Utah have also developed universal sandboxes to facilitate technology innovation across sectors.
  7.  In most states where bar associations regulate the practice of law, membership in the bar is mandatory. These mandatory (or unified) bars are funded through membership dues. This structure maintains the independence of the judiciary by ensuring state bars are not dependent on funds from the legislature. William Burnham, Introduction to the Law and Legal System of the United States 135 (4th ed. 2006); Keller v. State Bar of California, 496 U.S. 1 (1990). 
  8.  For example, in 2018 the California state legislature mandated de-unification, creating the State Bar of California as the regulatory agency and the California Lawyers Association as a voluntary educational and networking group. Lyle Moran, California Split: 1 Year After nation’s Largest Bar became 2 Entities, Observers See Positive Change, A.B.A. J. (Feb. 4, 2019), https://www.abajournal.com/web/article/california-split-1-year-after-californias-state-bar-became-2-entities-observers-see-positive-changes. 
  9.  Narrowing the Access-to-Justice Gap by Reimagining Regulation, UTAH WORK GROUP ON REGULATORY REFORM 10 (Aug. 2019), https://utahinnovationoffice.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/Narrowing-the-Justice-Gap-Report-August-2019.pdf. 
  10.  Utah Supreme Court Standing Order No. 15 Amended Sept. 21, 2022 at 8-9, https://utahinnovationoffice.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/Standing-Order-No.15-Amended-9.21.22.pdf. 
  11.  Board and Staff, OFFICE OF LEGAL SERVICES INNOVATION (Dec. 30, 2022 7:30 PM), https://utahinnovationoffice.org/about/staff-list/.
  12.  Utah Supreme Court, supra note 10 at 8. 
  13.  Id. at 8-16. 
  14.  Id. Notably, applications are not available made public until they have been acted upon by the Court. While an application is being reviewed, it remains confidential.
  15.  Id. at 15-16. 
  16.  Innovation Office Manual, OFFICE OF LEGAL SERVICES INNOVATION 4-5 (Aug. 25, 2021), https://utahinnovationoffice.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/IO-Manual-Published-Aug.-25-2021.pdf. The Innovation Office has specific service model risk categories to offer guidance to applicants, and also requires a series of disclosures which further help assess potential risk. 
  17.  Supporters include the Institute for the Advancement of the American Legal System (IAALS), the State Justice Institute, and the National Center for State Courts. 
  18.  Innovation Office Activity Report Executive Summary, OFFICE OF LEGAL SERVICES INNOVATION Dec. 20, 2022), https://utahinnovationoffice.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/Final-IO-Public-Monthly-Report-November-2022.pdf.
  19.  See David Freeman Engstrom, Lucy Ricca, Graham Ambrose, and Maddie Walsh, Legal Innovation After Reform: Evidence from Regulatory Change, STAN. L. SCH. DEBORAH C. RHODE CENTER ON THE LEGAL PROF. 46 (2022), https://law.stanford.edu/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/SLS-CLP-Regulatory-Reform-REPORTExecSum-9.26.pdf.
  20.  Id. At this time of writing, this report offers the only comprehensive analysis of legal services emerging in response to rule reforms in Utah. 
  21.  See, e.g., id. at 5. (new models include traditional law firms changing capital or business structures or service models; “law companies” practicing law; “non-law companies” as new entrants to the legal sector; intermediary platforms; and entities using nonlawyers and technology to practice law). 
  22.  Id. at 6-7, 39 (2022).
  23.  Authorized Entities, OFFICE OF LEGAL SERVICES INNOVATION (Dec. 30 7:51 PM), https://utahinnovationoffice.org/authorized-entities/.