WSR 19-11-041
RULES OF COURT
STATE SUPREME COURT
[May 1, 2019]
IN THE MATTER OF PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO APR 28—LIMITED PRACTICE RULE FOR LIMITED LICENSE LEGAL TECHNICIANS; APR 28 APPENDIX—REGULATION 2 PRACTICE AREAS—SCOPE OF PRACTICE AUTHORIZED BY LIMITED LICENSE LEGAL TECHNICIAN RULE; APR 28 APPENDIX REGULATION 3—EDUCATION REQUIREMENTS FOR LLLT APPLICANTS AND APPROVAL OF EDUCATIONAL PROGRAMS; RULES OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT (RPC) 1.0B—ADDITIONAL WASHINGTON TERMINOLOGY; RPC 1.17—SALE OF LAW PRACTICE; RPC 4.3—DEALING WITH A PERSON NOT REPRESENTED BY A LAWYER; RPC 5.8—MISCONDUCT INVOLVING LAWYERS AND LLLTs NOT ACTIVELY LICENSED TO PRACTICE LAW; RPC 8.1—BAR ADMISSION AND DISCIPLINARY MATTERS; AND LLLT RULES OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT (LLLT RPC) LLLT RPC 1.0B—ADDITIONAL TERMINOLOGY; LLLT RPC 1.2—SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION AND ALLOCATION OF AUTHORITY BETWEEN CLIENT AND LLLT; LLLT RPC 1.5—FEES; LLLT RPC 1.17; LLLT RPC 1.8 CONFLICT OF INTEREST: CURRENT CLIENTS: SPECIFIC RULES; LLLT RPC 1.15A—SAFEGUARDING POLICY; LLLT RPC 1.16—DECLINING OR TERMINATING REPRESENTATION; LLLT RPC 1.7 SALE OF A LAW PRACTICE; LLLT RPC 2.1; LLLT RPC 2.3 [RESERVED]; LLLT RPC 3.1—ADVISING AND ASSISTING CLIENTS IN PROCEEDINGS BEFORE A TRIBUNAL; LLLT RPC 3.6-3.9 [RESERVED]; LLLT RPC 4.1—TRUTHFULNESS IN STATEMENTS TO OTHERS; LLLT RPC 4.2—COMMUNICATION WITH PERSON REPRSENTED BY LAWYER; LLLT RPC 4.3—DEALING WITH PERSON NOT REPRESENTED BY LAWYER; LLLT RPC 5.4—PROFESSIONAL INDPENDENCE OF A LLLT; LLLT RPC 5.5 UNAUTHORIZED PRACTICE OF LAW; LLLT RPC 8.1—LICENSING, ADMISSION, AND DISCIPLINARY MATTERS; LLLT RPC 8.4—MISCONDUCT
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ORDER
NO. 25700-A-1258
The Washington State Supreme Court Limited License Legal Technician Board, having recommended the expeditious adoption of the proposed amendments to APR 28, APR 28 Appendix, RPCs and LLLT RPCs, and the Court having considered the amendments, and having determined that the proposed amendments will aid in the prompt and orderly administration of justice:
Now, therefore, it is hereby
ordered:
(a) That the proposed amendments as shown below are adopted.
(b) That pursuant to the emergency provisions of GR 9 (j)(1), the proposed amendments will be published expeditiously in the Washington Reports and will become effective upon publication.
dated at Olympia, Washington this 1st day of May, 2019.
 
 
Fairhurst, C.J.
Johnson, J.
 
Wiggins, J.
Madsen, J.
 
 
 
 
 
Stephens, J.
 
 
GONZALEZ, J. (dissenting)—I cannot join the court's decision today. Any decision to expand the scope of the Limited License Legal Technician (LLLT) program requires careful evaluation of the program's sustainability, its potential benefits, and establishment of a methodology that will both ensure adherence to rules of professional conduct and ensure adequate client protection. We have the opportunity to do this as we are undertaking a comprehensive review of the structure of the Bar. Ironically, the majority fundamentally changes the LLLT program when, at the same time, we have required the Board of Governors to defer action on any proposed bylaw amendments concerning the role of LLLTs in the governance of the bar. Because the majority's ill-advised decision is a mistake and because it becomes effective on publication, I respectfully dissent.
The LLLT program was conceived as an effort to address the unmet civil legal needs of low-income Washingtonians. We ultimately determined that the area that needed most attention was family law and that assistance with preparing orders and assisting individuals with filling out forms would make a significant difference. It did not take long to realize that the business model adopted by the LLLT program was incompatible with meeting the needs of low-income individuals and so the program shifted to becoming a moderate means effort. Without any evidence of success, the program has begun expanding the scope of legal services that LLLTs are allowed to provide.
LLLTs were never meant to legally advocate on behalf of a client. The majority's hasty decision fundamentally alters the role of LLLTs, allowing LLLTs to immediately begin negotiating with opposing counsel, attending depositions, and appearing and responding to questions from the court without adequate legal training. Moreover, there is no training for judges or attorneys to accommodate this significant and immediate expansion of authority.
Further, even with this expansion, I have serious doubts that the LLLT program is financially sustainable for the Bar or provides a sustainable practice area for LLLTs themselves. It is entirely possible that we could tweak the program into financial sustainability, but we have been presented with no business plan or other meaningful evidence of how that might be done in a way that protects the public. Until the evidence supports a conclusion that the program can be sustainable without harm to the public, I am opposed to expanding its scope. The significant financial burden of the LLLT program on the Washington State Bar Association is not justified without a showing that there exists a sustainable business plan allowing LLLTs to meet the population's unmet legal needs.
We must address the issue of unmet legal needs, but we must do it wisely and carefully. I respectfully dissent.
 
 
Gonzalez, J.
 
 
Yu, J.
 
 
Owens, J.
 
 
Gordon McCloud, J.
 
 
 
Reviser's note: The material contained in this filing exceeded the page-count limitations of WAC 1-21-040 for appearance in this issue of the Register. It will appear in the 19-12 issue of the Register.
Reviser's note: The spelling errors in the above material occurred in the copy filed by the State Supreme Court and appear in the Register pursuant to the requirements of RCW 34.08.040.
Reviser's note: The brackets and enclosed material in the text of the above section occurred in the copy filed by the agency and appear in the Register pursuant to the requirements of RCW 34.08.040.