Posted: May 28, 2024
Supreme Court Rules of Professional Practice – Comment Period Closes July 12, 2024
The purpose of these new rules is to align the governance structure of the Office of Legal Services Innovation and Legal Services Innovation Committee with the rule-based governance structures the Supreme Court uses to manage the Utah State Bar, Board of Mandatory Continuing Legal Education, and the Office of Professional Conduct. These new chapters do not amend or alter any existing practices or authorizations.
LSI11-0701.New. Legal Services Innovation Purpose
LSI11-0702.New. Legal Services Innovation Committee Composition
LSI11-0703.New. Disclosure, Recusal, Disqualification
LSI11-0704.New. Legal Services Innovation Office and Committee Powers
LSI11-0705.New. Entity Data
LSI11-0706.New. Non-traditional Legal Service Provides Assisting Clients in Court
Innovation for Justice (i4J), a social justice innovation lab housed at the University of Utah David Eccles School of Business and the University of Arizona James E. Rogers College of Law, comments in support of Rule Change 11-706, Non-traditional Legal Providers Assisting Clients in Court. i4J’s Service Impact Area supports jurisdictions in designing and launching new service pathways to legal empowerment for systematically marginalized populations. This work includes Medical Debt Legal Advocates and Housing Stability Legal Advocates within the Utah Sandbox, and Domestic Violence Legal Advocates and Housing Stability Legal Advocates authorized by the Arizona Supreme Court. Legal advocates trained by i4J and authorized by the Supreme Courts of Arizona and Utah are credentialed to provide limited scope legal advice to the low-income communities they serve, as part of their holistic approach to social services. In Arizona, Domestic Violence Legal Advocates and Housing Stability Legal Advocates are authorized to provide in-court support for survivors and tenants who are representing themselves in court proceedings, in a manner similar to the proposed 11-706 rule change. Community-centered research demonstrates that self-represented litigants achieve more procedural due process with the support of a legal advocate, ensuring more just court proceedings and fairer case outcomes. Permitting legal advocates to support self-represented litigants in courts also fosters efficiency during court hearings. The Utah Supreme Court has been a leader in advancing access to justice through expanding the capacity of roles other than lawyers to provide legal help – similar efforts are now underway in several other states (see https://iaals.du.edu/projects/unlocking-legal-regulation/regulatory-models). We support this role change in furtherance of that work.