THE HOUSE JUDICIARY Committee is currently considering a bill (HB 1420) that would allow persons not licensed to practice law to represent up to six "clients" a year in New Hampshire courts. For many reasons, this legislation is a bad idea.

Allowing non-lawyers to routinely practice law is not an issue of "protecting lawyers' turf." It is not an issue of whether, on occasion, a non-lawyer can do a good job presenting a case. It is an issue of whether those who regularly represent individuals in legal matters should be subject to the comprehensive consumer protection system of education, competence, oversight and accountability that currently regulates licensed attorneys in this state.

This system of regulation and consumer protection begins when a person first enters law school and continues until he or she retires. This comprehensive regulatory system also brings with it important client protections: the confidentiality of communications between clients and their attorneys are preserved under long-standing precedents; attorneys follow strict guidelines in avoiding representation in situations where conflicts of interest can occur; and clients victimized by rare acts of dishonesty may be compensated through a fund to which all attorneys in NH must contribute.

HB 1420 would allow non-lawyers to represent six people per year without these protections. What is the reasoning behind this arbitrary number? Why should someone operate outside the system of licensing for 60 clients over 10 years, or 120 over 20 years? Why not more, why not fewer?

The sponsors of this bill have suggested that citizens should be able to choose whomever they want to represent them in court, and by choosing non-lawyers they may save money. Other supporters of this bill claim that they have a "right" to represent people in court without going to law school, passing the bar, and being subject to the rules that regulate lawyer conduct. These nearsighted arguments lead to some interesting and frightening analogies, which perhaps demonstrate best why this bill is a consumer-protection nightmare.

For example, I have always wanted to fly jets, although I possess neither training, experience nor a license. Nevertheless, I think I should be able to fly six commercial flights per year, maybe not to Europe, but at least short routes - perhaps to Baltimore or Philadelphia. I'm sure there are many of you who would like to be electricians. Perhaps any person should be able to wire six buildings per year, including maybe a civic center, office building or school, without a license. Even if the building burns to the ground, people can hardly complain because they saved so much money by not being required to pay the rates of licensed electricians. What about surgeons, commercial truck drivers, professional sports officials, architects, nuclear power plant engineers, veterinarians, air traffic controllers, nurses, stockbrokers, EMTs and real estate agents?

Who needs a license to teach our children? If all of us could teach six days per year, think of the money that the state would save on public education. The kids might not learn much, but surely that is a small price to pay. Maybe we should all be allowed to replace the brakes on six school buses per year. Sure, a few bad accidents involving children may occur, but think of the money the state would save if licensed mechanics were not required for this task.

But how do these examples compare with allowing someone to represent us in a legal matter? Surely lawyers can't do that much damage, can they?

Lawyers in New Hampshire handle hundreds of millions of dollars of client funds per year. They are entrusted with the most profound family matters and significant business transactions. They can be tasked with safeguarding our rights if we are accused of a crime and face the possibility of going to jail.

Lawyers' handling of client funds is strictly monitored and regulated, and malpractice insurance is available to licensed attorneys. Even lawyer advertising is regulated to ensure that attorneys cannot make false claims as to their competency.

Those who wish to practice law without a license are, quite simply, seeking to profit without paying. The clients who are represented by them are left unprotected by the safeguards of a comprehensive system of attorney regulation, and are denied the safety of their secrets through the bounds of attorney-client confidentiality. They have no assurance - and no recourse - if their non-attorney agrees to represent them despite egregious conflicts of interest.

After the recent Enron fiasco, responsible lawmakers should be safeguarding the laws and ethical frameworks that oversee professions, not dismantling them. Is every licensed attorney perfect? Of course not. But does that mean we should abandon a comprehensive system of consumer protection designed to ensure, as best as possible, that the consumers of legal services in this state are represented by competent, accountable and regulated legal professionals? HB 1420 is ill-conceived, of questionable motivation, and should be killed.

Home | About the Bar | For Members | For the Public | Legal Links | Publications | Online Store
Lawyer Referral Service | Law-Related Education | NHBA•CLE | NHBA Insurance Agency | NHMCLE
Search | Calendar

New Hampshire Bar Association
2 Pillsbury Street, Suite 300, Concord NH 03301
phone: (603) 224-6942 fax: (603) 224-2910
email: NHBAinfo@nhbar.org
© NH Bar Association Disclaimer