Catherine Kemnitz
SVP, Global Head of Legal
T. +1.917.237.2918
C. +1.612.222.7052
E. [email protected]

Axiom Global Inc. (Axiom) writes to comment on Arizona Task Force on the Delivery of Legal Services recommendations.

T.Gerald Chilton, Jr.
PO Box AC
212 Crowe Street
Superior, Arizona 85173
(520) 689-9000

I strongly object to and oppose Petition R-20-0034 for the reasons set forth on your Rules Forum of those that also oppose the pending petition.
Thank you in advance for registering my opposition to your proposed rule change.

Thomas Burnett
State Bar # 026509
1744 South Val Vista Drive, Suite 208
Mesa, AZ 85204
480-347-9116
[email protected]

Comment to the April 27, 2020 Task Force Response:
My Comment in Opposition relates to the Task Force’s recommendation to eliminate Ethical Rule 5.4 to allow non-lawyer ownership of law firms. As described below, eliminating ER 5.4 will not increase access to justice, will cause damage to the legal profession generally, and will only financially benefit lawyers and non-lawyer investors to the detriment of the underserved.

On January 30, 2020, the Task Force released its Proposal. The first set of comments roundly disagreed with the Proposal, with a few exceptions, mostly from out-of-state interests. The Comments’ subject matter varied, some comments decried the negative effects the proposals would have on the legal system in general, others focused on the ethical clashes that would result from non-lawyer ownership of law firms, while others demanded answers to the question, “How does eliminating ER 5.4 increase access to justice?” On April 27, 2020, the Task Force issued its Response. The latter question was largely ignored in the Response. And for good reason: As Mr. Geoffrey Trachtenberg pointed out in his March 20, 2020 comment, “the “Access to Justice” mantra is being coopted as a Trojan Horse; it’s being used by private equity and hedge funds who desire to squeeze every last dollar out of the legal practice.”

As it relates to ER 5.4 the Response addresses “Access to Justice” only briefly and attempts to use the Covid-19 pandemic as leverage. Literally, other than hyperbole, there is no explanation for how eliminating ER 5.4 would increase access to justice.

Following is a summary of the Task Force’s comments regarding elimination of ER 5.4 and its relationship to “Access to Justice”, along with this authors response:
1. Innovative ways to conduct business which helped law firms through the pandemic would not have been possible without an “infusion” of new technology and emergency changes to existing court rules
a. Response: Yes, and this was all done without eliminating ER 5.4. It turns out attorneys, judges, and their wonderful staff can adopt new technologies, create innovative ways to conduct business, and respond to emergencies.
2. “The Task Force recommendations, while not foreseeing the pandemic, fulfill its charge to ignite similar innovation into the traditional services and to expand access to justice, not just for low income and indigent persons, but for working- and middle-class persons.”
a. Response: This is hyperbole. It doesn’t say how eliminating 5.4 would increase access to justice.
3. “The effects of the pandemic will severely increase the need for legal services”.
a. Response: How and why? Maybe the need for legal services will increase, maybe it won’t. But how does eliminating ER 5.4 increase access to legal services?
4. “These proposals will be increasingly relevant and necessary to ensure the public’s legal needs are met.”
a. Response: How?
5. “Moreover, the financial impact of the pandemic on some law firms may be severe. The ability to partner with other professionals to create innovative ways to deliver legal services in addition to the ability to attract capital may well help firms survive and thrive in what will likely become a new normal.”
a. Response: How does this relate to access to justice? Instead, it panders to attorneys and ignores reality: there are other, more reasonable, ways to gain access to capital and keep the legal profession alive during this time of crisis without eliminating ER 5.4.
6. “Adopting the changes would allow Arizona to expand access to justice while protecting the public, the very charge the Task Force was given.”
a. Response: How?

At the end of the day, no explanation is provided, because there is none. Because it is illogical to believe that adding a second layer of “professionals” (the non-lawyer owner) to a law firm, would result in an increase in access to justice. An explanation does not exist because “Access to Justice” by eliminating ER 5.4 is private equity’s Trojan Horse. It is the same reason non-doctor/dentist ownership of medical and dental practices has not increased access to dental or medical care. It only results in worse dental and medical care. We have seen this play out: dentists/doctors can only meet with you for 10 minutes because that is the only time allotted under their investors’ business model. The primary care physician walks in the office to say hi and tell you what the diagnosis is before he hurries out of the room b/c if he doesn’t fit in 120 patients in one day, the owners are going to decrease his compensation.

The only way to pay for the non-lawyer’s partnership interest is to increase profits. That does not translate to an increase in access to justice.

Unlike the consumer product business model of selling widgets, where prices can decrease as competition increases when more companies produce the widget, in the legal, medical, and dental context, the “widget” is the professional’s service. It is the dentist’s work on your crown, the doctor performing a surgery, or a lawyer trying your case for which the client pays. The cost of legal representation doesn’t decrease as the layers of ownership increase- the opposite is true.

Now that the room is cleared of the apparition that elimination of ER 5.4 has anything to do with "access to justice", we can have a candid discussion regarding what it is about: Money.

1. In England non-lawyer ownership of law firms was introduced in 2011. Is nine (9) years long enough to determine if non-lawyer ownership of law firms increased access to justice? If it is, the following is what has happened in England: Overwhelmingly, the “infusion” of non-lawyer ownership was injected into the personal injury market. (1) Personal injury law firms have become publicly traded on the London Stock Exchange. But wait a minute? Like Arizona, personal injury cases in England are handled on a contingent fee basis. This is a “no win/no fee” structure which presents no barrier to the entry of legal services for no- and low-income clients. If the purpose of eliminating ER 5.4 is to increase access to justice, why are most non-lawyer ownership models entering a field with no economic barrier to entry for no- and low-income clients? Money.
2. In England, while non-lawyer ownership in areas of law practice which present no economic barrier to entry for no- and low-income clients has ballooned, other areas have seen virtually no non-lawyer ownership, including the areas of “Civil Liberties, Immigration, and Financial Advice.” (2)
3. In an interesting twist, In England, many of the non-lawyer owned personal injury law firms are owned by insurance companies. Once non-lawyer ownership was approved, liability insurance carriers have formed their own personal injury law firms to whom they refer their injured clients/insureds. (3)
4. Speaking of England, citations to Crispin Passmore’s writings are quoted throughout the Response. The Response refers to Mr. Passmore as the former head of the Solicitors Regulation Authority in England and Wales. This is certainly true; but what is also true is that Mr. Passmore is the owner of “Passmore Consulting” a consulting firm which earns its business from consulting businesses in the UK; among other things, it provides consulting for law firms that want to adopt the non-lawyer ownership model (ABS model). His firm’s website states: “Regulatory reform is creating new opportunities in the UK and the US. I can help you explore these changes…” And “Around the world legal markets are starting to open. They are looking to England & Wales because of the regulatory reform and pace of change here. I am already helping other national regulators, investors, global legal business, UK law firms and a wide range of other legal service providers. Let me help you too.” (https://www.passmoreconsulting.co.uk/)
5. The takeaway? Nine years of non-lawyer ownership of law firms have not improved access to justice in England. (4)

Although the ABS model has existed in England for nearly a decade, there is zero evidence that non-lawyer ownership of law firms does anything but line investor pockets. Unfortunately for proponents of eliminating ER 5.4, lining investor pockets with legal fees, causing the personal injury and litigation fields to become “infused” with non-lawyer marketing and investor appetite, is not the stated purpose of the Task Force. The curtain has been pulled back and the wizard is just a group of profit-hungry investors.

What may be effective in fighting access to justice inequality is an “infusion” of capital into Legal Aid and other services which provide free and low-cost legal help, the requirement that lawyers perform a minimum amount of pro bono work per year and a requirement that, as a portion of their annual CLE credits, some of those credits are directed toward an understanding of the legal needs of no and low-income clients. Oftentimes what is needed is a consistent reminder to compel good people to act.

In summary, eliminating ER 5.4 will not increase access to justice, will cause damage to the legal profession generally, and will only financially benefit lawyers and non-lawyer investors to the detriment of the underserved.

Endnotes:
1. See “Nick Robinson, When Lawyers Don’t Get all the Profits: Non-Lawyer Ownership, Access, and Professionalism, 29 Geo. J. Legal Ethics 1, 20-21 (2016)
2. Id at 21.
3. Id at 22.
4. See Robinson, at 23-28

Nick Verderame
Plattner Verderame, PC
316 E Flower St
Phoenix, AZ 85012
(602) 266-2002

I strongly oppose the proposed Rule change to allow for non-attorney ownership of a law firm.

The legal field is a profession, not just a business. While earning profits is a goal of any business, it is not - and should not - be the primary goal and focus of a law firm. Rather, justice, and all that comes with it, is the primary goal. Allowing for outside financial influences changes that priority structure and jeopardizes everything the legal profession has stood for (and on) for the history of its existence.

We cannot put the profession position where outside influences are making litigation decisions based solely on share prices. We cannot put the profession in a position when a firm's actual decision makers are not governed by the State Bar. We cannot put the profession in a position where the unregulated owners of the firm work around Ethics Rules, so the firm can avoid regulation while protecting its attorneys who "hear no evil, and see no evil."

Attorneys have always held ourselves to a higher standard because we are a profession, and we regulate ourselves. We hold the law in high regard. Meanwhile, we fight off unwarranted jokes and stereotypes about lawyers just being money hungry. Allowing this Rule change to go into effect not only chips away at the respect we have for the law, and it absolutely plays right into the negative stereotypes.

By implementing this Rule change, you will encourage the degradation of the legal profession. It is the first step into making law firms like run of the mill businesses and venture capital firms - existing solely for the purpose of creating profits. The legal profession is better than this.

Craig J. Simon
2141 E. Broadway Rd. Ste. 113
Tempe, Az 85282
480.745.2450
[email protected]

I oppose the Petition which would eliminate ER 5.4 and 5.7 and allow non-lawyers to co-own law firms. I have been a licensed attorney for 37 years and have been practicing in Arizona for nearly 22 years. The Petition may very well increase access to legal services, but at what price for those who are in need of competent legal services in a specialized situation when they walk into a box store mill for legal services.This has happened in the medical field where unlicensed people own medical clinics. The quality of care suffers which will likely occur in the legal profession in the quality of legal services.
What may be effective in fighting access to justice inequality is an "infusion" of capital into Legal Aid and other services which provide free or low-costs legal assistance, the requirement that lawyers perform some pro bono work mandatory continuing legal education is critical. Non lawyers would not have to comply with the pro bono and CLE mandates.

In conclusion, eliminating ER 5.4 will not increase access to justice, will cause damage to the quality of legal services by provided by the legal profession, and will only financially benefit lawyers and non-lawyer investors to the detriment of those not served by the legal community.

Ian Neale, SBN 005201,
[email protected]
602-234-9909.

I am opposed to this in its entirety.

Matthew P. Millea
301 East Bethany Home Road
Suite B100
Phoenix, Arizona 85012
(480) 367-1921
millealawfirm.com
Arizona Bar No. 011620
[email protected]

I oppose the proposed rule change. There is no question that access to legal services is not what it should be. But the proposals here are likely to do what similar efforts have done in other professions-- reduce the quality of the services provided, while only attracting corporate investors who seek to skim money off a system they consider to be inefficient. Any true profession, that claims to put the interests of clients ahead of the professionals themselves, is going to be inefficient from the standpoint of a typical business. But that is what makes the legal profession what it is. I am proud to be a lawyer because I know what sacrifices it takes all of us to live up to the ideals of the profession. But I don't think that allowing non-lawyers to profit from providing legal services is going to make those services any less expensive. It will only lower the quality, and create even more distrust of the institution.
I am a sole practitioner and have been for the last ten years. I do spend significant amounts of time running the business, as opposed to practicing law. But I see no reason to believe to believe that partnering with non-lawyers would improve the service I give to my clients. Nor do I think it would improve the quality of my life. It would increase my overhead significantly, leading to even more pressure to recover fees from clients as efficiently as possible. The practice of law is hard, and it always will be. It is supposed to be. We take on other peoples most serious problems and try to help them with them. We don't need these changes. They will not benefit the public or the profession. Please deny the petition.

John Micheaels Beale, Micheaels, Slack & Shughart 7012 N. 18th St. Phoenix, AZ 85020 602-650-2465 [email protected]
I write in strong opposition to the proposal to eliminate Ethical Rule 5.4. I have read the comments of Tom Burnett and incorporate and reiterate those comments herein. There has been presented zero evidence that allowing non lawyers to own and control law firms will in any way “expand access to justice” or “protect the public.” Certainly the Response submitted on behalf of the Task Force does not do so. How “infusing capital” into a private venture of any kind, let alone a law firm, “expands access to justice” or “protects the public” has yet to be articulated, let alone proven. Our profession and the public would be far better served if we directed our efforts at increasing financial support for our public judicial system, not by having profit-seeking non lawyers and corporations “infuse capital” into private law firms in order to reap more profit. Finally, before I could practice law I was required to take an oath that I would support the constitutions and laws of our state and country, support the fair administration of justice and legal representation for those unable to afford counsel, and treat the courts of justice and judicial officers with due respect. In taking that public oath I became a public (not private) citizen and officer of the court and the administration of justice. Non lawyers are neither constrained nor bound by this public oath. Many do not know of its existence. In my mind, no matter how far the practice of law and administration of justice may sometimes deviate from the principles set forth in our oath, it is this public oath that must continue to serve as the foundation for our profession and the practice of law. Thank you for considering my thoughts.

Jennifer Cranston
2575 E. Camelback Rd., Phoenix, AZ 85016
602-530-8191
[email protected]
020640

I oppose the petition’s proposal to eliminate ER 5.4, but support the concept of limited license legal practitioners. I appreciate the Task Force’s efforts and commitment to addressing access to justice. I also appreciate the thoughtful articles included in the Arizona Attorney Magazine on these topics. Based on the information presented, I cannot support non-lawyer ownership at this time. While the limited license proposal seems appropriately grounded in an effort to improve access to legal resources and seeks to accomplish this goal via a tested and measured approach, the recommendation regarding non-lawyer ownership does not. Thank you for considering these comments.

Jeremy Ashworth
State Bar #032977
2701 East Camelback Road Suite 140
Phoenix AZ 85016
602-952-3104
[email protected]

I join in opposing the petition. Geoffrey Trachtenberg, Frank Verderame, and Judge Swann all discuss the problems with letting this petition become the law. The ethical problems this will likely unleash causing harm to the public should be enough to stop it before it begins.

Scott I. Palumbo (current President of the Arizona Association for Justice/ Arizona Trial Lawyers Association)
2800 N. Central Ave., Suite 1400
Phoenix, Arizona 85004
602-265-5777



I have read the Petitioner’s Response and Amended Petition and remain as skeptical of the proposed rule changes as ever. As eloquently outlined by my colleague Thomas Burnett in his April 30, 2020 comment, the Response, “other than hyperbole, [offers] no explanation for how eliminating ER 5.4 would increase access to justice.”

Indeed, Dean Emeritus Daniel Rodriguez, a member of the Task Force who was asked to write an article in the April 2020 Az Attorney Magazine in support of the proposed rule changes, was forced to concede that there is no concrete evidence supporting that allowing nonlawyer ownership of law firms would result in ANY increased access to justice: "Even among enthusiasts of nonlawyer ownership, as I am, we must candidly admit that we do not yet know whether the access to justice needle will be moved by permitting nonlawyer ownership. The evidence from the United Kingdom is ultimately indeterminate, even a dozen years after the enactment of the Legal Services Act that, among other reforms, permits nonlawyers to work with lawyers to form alternative business structures."

So, if there is no evidence to support that these drastic and novel rule changes will make ANY difference, let alone a material difference, why is the Petitioner in such a rush to have them adopted? Why does the Petitioner rely so heavily on the biased opinions of Mr. Crispin Passmore? Why are most of those who have commented in favor of the proposed rule changes from outside Arizona? Why is this all being done via the “Court Rules Forum,” an antiquated and completely non-user-friendly system incapable of hosting an open and transparent debate about the issues?

Sorry, but this whole thing doesn’t pass the smell test.

Kenneth Gerber
State Bar #027387
12133 W. Bell Rd., Suite 202
Surprise, AZ 85378
623-486-8300
[email protected]

Please accept this comment as opposition to the proposed rule change. For the better part of the last 25 years, I have owned and operated law firms in two different states. I cannot see a benefit to our clients by adopting this change. I believe that it will only diminish the profession and the ability to provide ethical, responsible and strong advocacy for our clients. Non-lawyer control of law firms will change the focus from the practice of law to one of keeping the line moving at the register. I have watched as other professions have allowed this, only to see the quality of care diminish greatly.

Ronda M Kelso
Burg Simpson Eldredge Hersh Jardine
[email protected]

I write in strong opposition to the rule change which would permit non-lawyer ownership of firms and creation of a new level of legal practitioner. I have no new or earthshattering information not already shared. I am extremely concerned about the precedent Arizona would be setting if this type of ownership were to be permitted. We are a body of legal practitioners who thrive on ethical considerations and their resolution. To even consider that someone without the level of education we have attained be responsible for the ethical considerations, fiscal responsibility, and status as officers of the court is reckless. one of the purported rationales for this sweeping change is to increase the access to the court system. This is a dangerous way to create the appearance of competent representation.

I write in strong opposition to the proposal to eliminate Ethical Rule 5.4. I have read the comments of Tom Burnett and incorporate and reiterate those comments. No evidence has been presented that allowing non lawyers to own and control law firms will in any way “expand access to justice” or “protect the public.” Moreover, as noted by others, it is troubling that a majority of comments in support of the rule change have come from organizations and individuals from outside of Arizona.

Kent Hammond
Law Offices of Rudolph & Hammond, LLC
8689 E. San Alberto Drive
Scottsdale, AZ 85258
Phone 480.951.9700
Fax 480.951.1185
[email protected]
www.rudolphhammond.com

George A. Riemer
Arizona Bar Member No. 017034
[email protected]
623-238-5039

While it appears that both ABS and LLLPs will be approved by the Arizona Supreme Court as complex regulations have been released to implement both, I appreciate the fact that the Court is continuing to accept comments on both proposals. I offer the following additional comments.

Jake Podolsky
4140 E Baseline Rd Ste 101
Mesa, AZ 85206
Phone: (480) 757-5000

I STRONGLY oppose the proposed creation of the Limited License Legal Practitioner (LLLP).

The American Bar Association has recommended against changes to Rule 5.4 as they relate to non lawyer ownership of law firms. I concur.

I have been practicing law for nearly 20 years in Arizona. Prior to that I wrote an honors thesis on Multidisciplinary Practices (MDPs), a professional entity where lawyers and non-lawyers work together in the same business. The concerns of 20 years ago remain even more pronounced today.

The concern is that a lawyer would be subject to influence by non-lawyer superiors whose decisions might be motivated by financial gain for the business, rather than concern for the client's needs. The fear is that where a lawyer's decisions are influenced by non-lawyers - who are not held to the same ethical standards - the client may receive inferior legal services or higher costs. For example, as a personal injury attorney owning a law firm, I always reduce my fee as a gesture of good faith. Nothing in the fee agreement requires me to do so. But, if my firm were owned by a non-lawyer, the reduction of the fees would be vetoed. This results in the antithesis of what this proposal seeks to accomplish, and instead results in higher costs for low income individuals.

Similarly non-lawyer owners would not have been trained in the ethics of the law and may not be sympathetic to the type of concerns that lawyers are required to consider. Pro bono honors would diminish, thereby, again, resulting in less access to justice by individuals who need it the most.

And, what of disbarred lawyers? If this proposal passes, could they own law firms? And provide legal advice? Will the very people the profession has deemed unfit to practice be the decision makers of the tomorrow?

The proposed rule change then suggests a "compliance attorney”. This added cost to a small firm would necessarily raise the costs of doing business, and such costs would get passed to lower income individuals, again defeating the intended purpose of the Petition #20-0034.

A.J. Mitchell
14555 N. Scottsdale Road, Suite 170
Scottsdale, AZ 85254
480-595-6800
Bar No. 021244

Douglas Zanes
AZ State Bar No. 018195
4222 East Thomas Road, #100
Phoenix, AZ 85018
[email protected]
602-999-9999

I have attached my comment in favor of the rule changes proposed in R-20-0034. Although I am in favor of the recommended changes in there entirety, I have focused my comments on why I support the elimination of ER 5.4.

Even with the Task Force's Response, I still vehemently oppose the recommendation to eliminate Ethical Rule 5.4 to allow non-lawyer ownership of law firms. The elimination of ER 5.4 will cause irreparable damage to the legal profession and will not increase the underserved population's access to justice. This is nothing more than an attempt by private equity and hedge funds who want another avenue to increase their income.

Ryan Skiver
Arizona State Bar Number 024552
THE SKIVER LAW FIRM
7201 E. Camelback Road, Suite 290
Scottsdale, AZ 85251
Telephone: (480) 626-1667
Email: [email protected]

Laura Hamblin,
Laura J. Hamblin, JD, PLLC
P.O. Box 11123
Prescott, AZ 86304
928-308-8394
[email protected]
AZ Bar #011875

May 15, 2020

Re: R-20-0034 - Comments on the Arizona Supreme Court’s Task Force on the Delivery of Legal Services’ Recommendations

I agree with all of the recommendations from the Arizona Supreme Court’s Task Force on the Delivery of Legal Services. The task force recognized the need to make some dramatic changes to better serve our communities, and I applaud them for doing so.

My legal career has been different than many lawyers and it has given me a perspective that I hope will be helpful to those who are evaluating whether or not to move forward on the rule changes, particularly the two most controversial recommendations; co-ownership of businesses that engage in the practice of law, and the development of “limited license legal practitioners” (LLLPs). For roughly twenty-five years, I worked as both in-house labor/employment law counsel and vice president of human resources for several nationwide retailers. During the last four years, I’ve had a solo part-time employment law practice and human resources consulting business.

Task Force’s Recommendation #1—Allowing co-ownership of businesses that engage in the practice of law, while preserving the professional independence of lawyers and protecting the public.

The recurring argument against this recommendation is that non-lawyer businesspeople, who don’t understand legal ethics and responsibilities, will be motivated by profit to pressure lawyers to disregard their ethical duties. That is such an unfair and broad generalization. Based on my experience working with nonlawyer executives and managers, with very few exceptions, they act professionally and with integrity, they respect my advice and understand the rigorous course of education required of lawyers, and they want to work within the lines of the law to earn their profits. There are exceptions, just as there are lawyers who violate the public’s trust and don’t follow the ethical rules. We see those examples every month in the Arizona Attorney magazine.

Throughout my career, I reported to non-lawyers, or to both a non-lawyer and lawyer at the same time. The organizations that employed me were not businesses that engaged in the practice of law—they were sales and profit-oriented retail businesses. Still, I understood that I had to comply with legal ethics in my work. Only one time did my nonlawyer supervisor ask for my assistance in doing something that I knew would create serious liability for the company (my client). Fortunately, I was able to convince him to choose another option, but I was prepared to go against his directive if he had insisted otherwise.
Regardless of the business model, lawyers must abide by our ethical rules and professional guidelines. I don’t see a difference between my non-lawyer supervisor asking me to do something I knew was wrong, or a supervising attorney at a firm pressuring other lawyers to bill unnecessary services or time to clients. In both situations, the lawyer who is in an ethically compromised position must push back.

Also, both of my examples took place in profit-motivated organizations. It seems so disingenuous to hear lawyers argue that profit-driven organizations will compromise lawyers’ judgment. When I worked in-house, an attorney at a firm that we used as outside counsel told me that the firm jokingly named a recently remodeled floor of their building after my employer because we were such a “good” client. The legal profession is just as profit-driven as many other professions.

As long as regulatory parameters are established to clarify the lines that aren’t to be crossed; and to provide safeguards to client confidentiality, lawyer independence and conflicts of interest; other business models should be permitted.

Task Force’s Recommendation #6—Development of a tier of “limited license legal practitioners” (LLLPs). There is still much work to be done by the steering committee before we are able to thoughtfully evaluate this recommendation, but I fully support the concept.

Being a solo practitioner has been an eye-opening experience, to say the least. I limit my employment law practice to employer-clients. Approximately 90% of my clients have less than 25 employees and many of those have less than 5 employees. Typically, the business owners handle the human resources function. They may have used a lawyer’s services to set up the business, but many of them ask their accountant or bookkeeping service for employment related legal advice. Those other professionals usually don’t field the questions, but sometimes they do, with mixed results.

I’ve read many of the comments opposing the task force’s LLLP recommendation, which express concern about the quality of advice and work product that people might receive. I understand that concern; however, if we stick with the status quo of primarily high-priced legal services, people will continue to rely on Google, a bookkeeper, or their next-door neighbor for legal advice. Often, by the time a new client calls me they have already made many poor decisions because they relied on flawed advice from uninformed sources. There is a tremendous need for affordable, competent and easily accessible legal resources and guidance.

I know that the area of employment law is not unique. Many people are just unable or unwilling to spend money on lawyers until they are over their heads with problems. The LLLP could possibly be a resource for people to turn to before they get to that point. For example, most larger employers have in-house human resources people (typically non-lawyers) who interpret and apply the laws to various employment situations. LLLPs might be able to do the same in a variety of other practice areas.

Clearly, much more work needs to go into identifying LLLP practice areas and scope, as well as developing a regulatory framework for LLLPs; but I strongly favor the concept.