Every Tennessean has a moral right to select the legal representation of her choice in the pursuit of justice. Yet the state’s restrictions limit choice and competition, stifle innovation, and raise costs.
The problem is both national and local. Our nation ranks 112th out of 143 countries in terms of the affordability and accessibility of the civil justice system. In Tennessee, legal services organizations that serve the poor are unable to solve the access to justice crisis on their own. Such organizations turn away 50% of people who seek their services. Making matters worse, legal aid organizations only provide services for Tennesseans who meet a certain poverty threshold. Tennesseans who are not quite poor enough to receive aid, yet still cannot afford legal services, are often left without options.
To remedy this situation, Beacon has filed a comment letter with the Tennessee Supreme Court urging a straightforward solution: reduce or eliminate rules that prohibit non-lawyer ownership of law firms and fee sharing with non-lawyers.
These barriers restrict numerous types of associations and activities, such as the ability of lawyers to provide legal services in a partnership with non-lawyers or to practice law in a corporation if a nonlawyer owns an interest in the firm or is a corporate director or officer. These rules also generally prohibit lawyers from sharing legal fees with non-lawyers. Though these restrictions are meant to “protect…lawyer[] independence of professional judgment,” they instead “wall off law firms from the technological, financial, and service innovations that have transformed almost every other part of the modern economy.”
Eliminating or greatly reducing these restrictions would unleash entrepreneurial energy in Tennessee’s legal sector. Law firms would gain access to the financing necessary to invest in better technology, hire additional staff, and expand the reach of their legal services. Routine matters could be handled more efficiently, leaving lawyers free to focus on complex cases and better represent their clients. As a result, legal services would be of higher quality and more readily available. Since similar reforms have already been adopted with success in other states, these projected benefits are not merely theoretical.
Tennessee has a choice: maintain outdated rules that restrict opportunity and choice or embrace reforms that respect individual rights, encourage productive achievement, and expand access to justice.