Long time readers of this blog are familiar with the on-going debates on whether non lawyers should be allowed to provide some types of legal services. As you recall, Washington state became the leader in this discussion when it approved rules to allow (and to regulate) the provision of limited legal services by state certified legal technicians (known as Limited License Legal Technicians, or LLLTs) in 2012. Other states have had similar discussions. For some posts on this topic go here, here, here, and here. And, one controversial part of the discussion is whether the resistance from some lawyers, and bar associations is based on protectionism rather than on a concern for the public. See here, for example.
A few days ago, the ABA Journal online published a short article on this topic called: "When UPL accusations against lawyer paraprofessionals are just protectionism." Its conclusion: "It’s time to embrace alternative delivery by removing barriers masquerading as ethical issues or provider ability accusations and refocus the discussion on client demand, not attorney supply."