Back in March of this year, I posted a comment on an Op-ed piece in the New York Times arguing that it is important to ease "unauthorized practice of law" statutes in favor of access to legal services. The piece was published in reaction to a case before the courts in New York at the time involving a not-for-profit organization called Upsolve which trains non-lawyers to provide limited legal advice to lower-income New Yorkers who face debt collection actions.
The company was accused on engaging in the unathorized practice of law, but last May the court found in its favor. [I just found out about the result this week!]
The issue in the case revolved around the company's claim that it had a first amendment protected right to do what it was doing, and the court agreed with the argument.
I just found out about the result in the case because I read a comment in the New York Legal Ethics Reporter in which the author argues that the court reaches the correct result but for the wrong reasons, and suggests other approaches that would be better in order to address the problem that Upsolve seeks to help with.
The author of the comment concludes that "I am no First Amendment scholar, but even I can see that the Court’s argument is rather labored, as the Court dances around concededly contrary precedent to achieve what it perceives as the correct result" and then suggests that "there has to be a better way for a program like Upsolve to exist than fighting dodgy constitutional battles."
To read the full comment, and particularly the recommendations on how to address the issue, go here.
No comments:
Post a Comment