Legal Techicians

In 6-3 decision, the Washington State Supreme Court on June 14, 2012  adopted APR 28, Limited License Legal Technician Rule as recommended by the Practice of Law Board.  According to the majority of justices, such technicians will be permitted to perform “very discrete, limited scope and limited function activities.”  Justice Owens, authoring the dissenting opinion, considered the ruling to be “ill-considered, incorrect, and most of all extremely unfair to members of the Washington State Bar Association.”  Particularly objectionable to Justice Owens was taxing practitioners for “all costs and expenses reasonably and necessarily incurred” by the Non Lawyer Practice Commission. 

WSBA President Crossland promptly issued this statement on the Adoption of the Limited License Legal Technician Rule: 

“Today the Washington Supreme Court adopted the Limited License Legal Technician (LLLT) Rule. The adopted rule is substantively the same as the Legal Technician Rule that was originally proposed by the Supreme Court's Practice of Law Board in 2008, but never acted on.   

This rule authorizes non-attorneys who meet certain educational requirements to advise clients on specific areas of law, which have yet to be determined.

While the Board of Governors consistently opposed the rule during its development, it's now time for our profession to participate and lead in the decision-making process to shape the best program possible. Nine attorneys will be appointed to the 13-member LLLT Board by the Supreme Court.

WSBA's role is to maintain the high standards we have set for our legal profession while serving as the regulators of this new rule. We will ensure quality implementation aimed at supporting our members and upholding protection of the public.

There is no other state with a similar LLLT rule. This rule provides Washington the opportunity to lead the nation in expanding legal services for the people of our state.”

There is considerable controversy surrounding this Rule.   In addition to consistent opposition by the WSBA Board of Governors as noted by President Crossland, many attorneys question the costs and responsibility for expenses to administer a “legal technician” program plus the supervision and quality assurance of such a program.     Upon learning of the Supreme Court’s decision the Pierce County Bar Association Family Law Section adopted a resolution opposing the program.