Proposed Rules Archives

• Proposed Changes to APR 28 Regulation 2 - Practice Areas-Scope of Practice Authorized by Limited License Legal Technician Rule (in Word Format)
• Comments Received for APR 28 Regulation 2 - Practice Areas-Scope of Practice Authorized by Limited License Legal Technician Rule

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: The primary purposes for the suggested amendments are to clarify the meaning of a portion of APR 28(F) that creates uncertainty concerning the scope of an LLLT’s permitted practice as it relates to writing letters, and to modify a portion of Appendix 2A that creates significant barriers to an LLLT’s ability to provide meaningful and useful advice to a client in a timely manner. The issues came to the attention of the Board as the scope of practice was being taught for the first time by the University of Washington School of Law; Board members heard from faculty and students alike concerning the difficulties posed by these issues. The Board discussed the two issues at a number of meetings over many months and concluded that changes to the rule language were desirable. The Board received advice and input from a scope of practice committee which included family law professors and private attorneys with family law experience. A draft of the rule changes was submitted by Board member Ellen Dial at the Board’s April 2015 meeting, and the Board approved the draft at its meeting in May, 2015.

   The following describes each proposed amendment and the amendment’s purpose and intended effect:

   APR 28(F)(8) - Scope of Practice Authorized by Limited Practice Rule

   The Board suggests an administrative amendment to add a clarifying phrase after the first three words of APR 28(F)(8). That section permits an LLLT to “draft legal letters…if the work is reviewed and approved by a Washington lawyer.” The Board believes that the intent of the rules is to prohibit an LLLT from writing letters containing legal advice that are intended to be read by persons other than the client unless the work is reviewed and approved by a Washington lawyer, but that it is not the intent of the rules to imply that LLLTs may write letters to clients only after review and approval by a lawyer. The authority of an LLLT to reduce to writing the legal advice that the LLLT has given or is giving to a client, where the intended recipient of the writing is the client, is implied by the express authorizations to give advice to a client that are set forth in other subsections of APR 28(F). Prohibiting LLLTs from writing of letters to a client unless under the supervision of a lawyer would unduly hinder the LLLT in giving meaningful and timely advice to the client within the authorized scope of the LLLT’s practice. The Board believes that letters containing legal advice that are intended to be read by persons other than the client should be reviewed and approved by a Washington lawyer, because advice given to third parties is beyond the authorized scope of an LLLT’s practice. These letters, which are often referred to as “opinion letters,” are often intended to describe to a third person a legal analysis in support of the author’s client’s position, another activity that is prohibited to LLLTs. Accordingly, the Board suggests an administrative amendment to clarify that the type of letters written by LLLTs that must be reviewed and approved by a Washington lawyer are letters that sets forth legal opinions and that are intended to be read by persons other than the client. The proposed amendment adds a clarifying phrase after the words “legal letters” in APR 28(F)(8), and begins a new second clause concerning preparation of other documents by repeating the word “draft” at the commencement of the second clause.

   Regulation 2: Practice Areas—Scope of Practice Authorized by Limited License Legal Technician Rule—Issues Beyond the Scope of Authorized Practice

   The Board suggests a substantive amendment to subpart A of Regulation 2, to allow an LLLT to prepare a document that includes an issue that is outside of the scope of the LLLT’s authorized practice if the LLLT complies fully with the obligations set forth in that Regulation to identify and describe the issue in writing and to recommend that the client secure advice from a lawyer, and if the client nonetheless elects not to seek advice from a lawyer but directs the LLLT how to complete the document with respect to the issue. As currently written, the regulation prohibits an LLLT from completing any document that involves such an issue. The result is that a client who elects not to engage a lawyer is left without effective assistance in completing the document. The Board believes the current language might also emphasize form over substance, because an LLLT is able to advise a client how to complete the portions of a form document that do lie within the authorized scope of the LLLT’s practice, but is not able to complete those portions him- or herself. Under the proposed amendment, the LLLT would be able to prepare the document under those circumstances, but would still be prohibited from advising the client regarding the issue that lies outside of the authorized scope of the LLLT’s practice, and would be obligated to complete any portion of the document that involves such an issue only at the client’s direction. Above the LLLT’s signature on the document, the LLLT would be obligated to insert a statement to the effect that the LLLT did not advise the client with respect to any issue that lies outside of the scope of the LLLT’s authorized practice and completed any portions of the document with respect to any such issues at the direction of the client. The proposed amendment modifies the second full paragraph of the Regulation, adds new material in the form of a second set of subparagraphs, and modifies the last sentence of the Regulation to reflect the new material.

   Conclusion

   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 promote the effective practice of the first cohort of LLLTs licensed in 2015. The LLLT program’s goal is to provide much needed access to justice. Delay of the amendments will hinder the LLLTs in providing relief to those in need of LLLT services.

6. Supporting Material: None.