The legal profession, often referred to as organized lawyerdom, frequently advocates for the stringent enforcement of Unauthorized Practice of Law (UPL) statutes. These statutes serve as a form of occupational licensure intended to protect the public by ensuring that only qualified attorneys provide legal services.
However, a closer examination reveals that this strict enforcement may not always benefit consumers. When non-lawyer professionals, such as paralegals, providers of automated legal forms, and accountants, are barred from offering competitive services, consumers may face limited choices and potentially higher costs for routine legal and related tasks. [George Leef, Forbes]
A key consideration in resolving the UPL debate is to distinguish between the various capacities inherent in legal practice. These capacities can be broadly categorized as coercive and non-coercive.
- Coercive Capacities: These involve the power to wield compulsion or force against others. The most significant example is the capacity to initiate litigation, which includes drafting and filing court documents, and representing a client in court proceedings where an attorney’s license is mandatory. These core adversarial functions are generally seen as needing the full scope of an attorney’s training and ethical obligations.
- Non-Coercive Capacities: These functions are less coercive and include activities such as performing legal research and providing general client advice. These services do not inherently involve the power to bind or compel others through the courts. Distinguishing these non-coercive services from the core adversarial role could open pathways for qualified non-lawyer professionals to offer them, thereby increasing competition and consumer access.
