Proposed Rules Archives

• Proposed Changes to APR 28 C & D - Limited License Legal Technician Board and Requirements for Applicants (in Word Format)
• Comments Received for APR 28 C & D - Limited License Legal Technician Board and Requirements for Applicants

1. Name of Proponent:

   Limited License Legal Technician (LLLT) Board

   Staff Liaison/Contact:

   Ellen Reed, Limited License Legal Technician Program Lead
   Washington State Bar Association
   1325 Fourth Avenue, Suite 600
   Seattle, WA 98101-2539 (Phone: 206-727-8289)

2. Spokesperson:

   Stephen R. Crossland
   Chair of LLLT Board
   P.O. Box 566
   Cashmere, WA 98815 (Phone: 509-782-4418) <

3. Purpose:

   When making decisions about the design of the LLLT program, the LLLT Board has always weighed whether or not each change they suggest to the Supreme Court will contribute to making the program more affordable, more accessible, and appropriately academically rigorous. In keeping with these guiding principles, the LLLT Board has noted that the rural nature of many communities in Washington suggests that in order to be truly accessible to a large portion of the state’s residents, the LLLT core curriculum must be offered in areas not currently served by ABA-approved paralegal education programs and law schools.

   Under the current rules and regulations governing the LLLT education, LLLT applicants must meet the LLLT core education requirement at an ABA-approved paralegal program or law school. There are currently four colleges with ABA-approved paralegal programs in Washington and three ABA-approved law schools. All of these schools are located in the Puget Sound area and Spokane. The southern, northern and central portions of the state’s population cannot access the LLLT core education except through piecing together an online course schedule, undertaking a long commute to school, or moving closer to the institutions which offer the education. For many students, none of these options are realistic. Furthermore, many schools with excellent paralegal programs are ready and willing to offer the LLLT education to their students, but cannot do so because they lack ABA approval. The ABA approval process is rigorous and respected, but it is also expensive and not an attainable goal for many schools with scarce economic resources.

   In order to expand access to the LLLT core education, the LLLT Board has consulted with educators and representatives from paralegal programs and law schools from across the state to develop standards that can be used to approve paralegal or legal studies programs that have not gone through the ABA approval process. The Board also consulted extensively with the Washington State Board of Community and Technical Colleges (SBCTC). The standards developed by the LLLT Board (“LLLT Educational Program Approval Standards”) are based on the ABA Guidelines for the Approval of Paralegal Education Programs, with a few notable differences. Key differences between the two sets of standards can be found in the “Brief Comparison of the ABA Guidelines for the Approval of Paralegal Programs and LLLT Educational Program Approval Standards” document which is attached hereto as supporting material item #2.

   Implementation of the LLLT Educational Program Approval Standards is possible only if accompanying amendments are made to APR 28 that will allow the LLLT core education to be offered by non-ABA approved programs and will give the LLLT Board the authority to establish and apply an approval process for the LLLT core education programs in Washington. The Standards allow the LLLT Board to delegate the power to review and approve programs to a third party. The LLLT Board has created a partnership with the SBCTC to fill the role of the third party delegate. The SBCTC carries out educational program review and approval for colleges across the state and is a logical and experienced body to which to delegate the LLLT educational program review and approval. In addition, the SBCTC played a very active part in assisting in the creation of the LLLT Educational Program Approval Standards with the intent of fulfilling the role of the delegate responsible for the program approval process.

   APR 28 C

   Two amendments are suggested to APR 28 (C); the first is merely a grammatical change suggested in order to maintain consistency in the text of APR 28. To that end, the Board suggests that “Limited License Legal Technician” in APR 28 (C)(2)(c) be changed to read “LLLT”. The second change suggested to APR 28 (C) is substantive; the Board proposes adding a new subsection (h) to APR 28 (C)(2) that would grant the LLLT Board the power to “establish and maintain criteria for approval of educational programs that offer LLLT core education.”

   APR 28 D

   Three amendments are proposed to APR 28 (D). Similarly to APR 28 (C), two of the suggested amendments seek to standardize the use of “LLLT” within the rules, rather than using “Limited License Legal Technician” and “LLLT” interchangeably. These proposed amendments can be found in sections (D) and (D)(2). A substantive amendment is suggested in APR 28(D)(3)(b), that will expand the accessibility of the LLLT core education by permitting LLLT applicants to complete the LLLT core curriculum at an educational institution with an LLLT education program approved by the LLLT Board. Again, the LLLT Board plans to delegate coordination of the program review, approval, and ongoing monitoring to the State Board of Community and Technical Colleges.

   APR 28 Regulation 3

   Amendments to APR 28 Regulation 3 will allow students completing the LLLT core curriculum to do so at a program approved under the LLLT Educational Program Approval Standards, in addition to an ABA approved law school or paralegal program. It also clarifies how credits are calculated by specifying the number of credit hours needed for completion of the curriculum and allows the evaluation of courses to be focused on the subject matter of the course rather than the name under which it is taught. The language in the proposed amendments to Regulation 3(A)(2) details the responsibility of the Board to establish and maintain standards for approval of non-ABA approved programs.

   Conclusion

   These proposed rule amendments seek to uphold the spirit and intent of APR 28 and move toward the expansion of access to legal services for all of Washington’s residents, regardless of their socioeconomic status or geographic location. Approving these changes to APR 28 will allow Washington’s 29 community and technical colleges, as well as universities and private colleges, to have the chance to participate in educating future practitioners of this innovative program. It will also allow more LLLT candidates to learn and make professional connections in their communities as they move through their pathway to becoming a LLLT. The LLLT Board believes that it is important that these proposed amendments be adopted and effective as soon as possible.

4. Hearing: A hearing is not requested.

5. Expedited Consideration: Expedited consideration is requested in order to allow schools that wish to offer the LLLT core education to begin the approval process and start developing their curriculum in anticipation of the 2016-17 school year.

6. Supporting Material:

   1. LLLT Educational Program Approval Standards

   2. Brief Comparison of the ABA Guidelines for the Approval of Paralegal Programs and LLLT Educational Program Approval Standards