Task Force on Access Through Innovation of Legal Services (ATILS)
Notice and Agenda
Wednesday, November 6, 2019
10:00 AM - 4:00 PM
The State Bar of California
180 Howard Street
Board Room, 4th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94105

Questions regarding any agenda item should be directed to the Committee Coordinator(s), Randall Difuntorum at 415-538-2161 or Chair, Justice Lee Edmon at 415-538-2116. Committee members are requested to notify the Committee Coordinator as early as possible in advance of the meeting if they wish to remove any item/s from the consent agenda.

Committee Members: Andrew Arruda, Simon Boehme, Tara Burd, Hon. Wendy Chang, Abhijeet Chavan, Jean Clauson, Johann Drolshagen, Margie Estrada, Lori Gonzalez, Bridget Gramme, Andrew Kucera, Kevin Mohr, Heather Morse, Joyce Raby, Allen Rodriguez, Toby Rothschild, Daniel Rubins, Mark Tuft, Angelina Valverde, Joshua Walker.
The order of business is approximate and subject to change.

To Join by Conference Call

Toll-Free Dial-In Number: 1-855-520-7605

Conference Code: 253-541-0212#

Open Session

A. Chair's Report
1. Roll Call
2. Call for Public Comment
3. Chair’s Report
4. Staff Report
A. Chair's Report
4. Staff Report
5. Approval of Action Summary from the October 7, 2019 Meeting
A. Chair's Report
5. Approval of Action Summary from the October 7, 2019 Meeting
B. Discussion and Possible Action on Recommendations Issued for Public Comment Concerning Exceptions to the Unauthorized Practice of Law, Including Consideration of Concepts for Regulation
1. Recommendation 1.0: The Task Force does not recommend defining the practice of law.
B. Discussion and Possible Action on Recommendations Issued for Public Comment Concerning Exceptions to the Unauthorized Practice of Law, Including Consideration of Concepts for Regulation
1. Recommendation 1.0: The Task Force does not recommend defining the practice of law.
2. Recommendation 1.1: The models being proposed would include individuals and entities working for profit and would not be limited to not for profits.
B. Discussion and Possible Action on Recommendations Issued for Public Comment Concerning Exceptions to the Unauthorized Practice of Law, Including Consideration of Concepts for Regulation
2. Recommendation 1.1: The models being proposed would include individuals and entities working for profit and would not be limited to not for profits.
3. Recommendation 2.0: Nonlawyers will be authorized to provide specified legal advice and services as an exemption to UPL with appropriate regulation.
B. Discussion and Possible Action on Recommendations Issued for Public Comment Concerning Exceptions to the Unauthorized Practice of Law, Including Consideration of Concepts for Regulation
3. Recommendation 2.0: Nonlawyers will be authorized to provide specified legal advice and services as an exemption to UPL with appropriate regulation.
4. Recommendation 2.1: Entities that provide legal or law-related services can be composed of lawyers, nonlawyers or a combination of the two, however, regulation would be required and may differ depending on the structure of the entity.
B. Discussion and Possible Action on Recommendations Issued for Public Comment Concerning Exceptions to the Unauthorized Practice of Law, Including Consideration of Concepts for Regulation
4. Recommendation 2.1: Entities that provide legal or law-related services can be composed of lawyers, nonlawyers or a combination of the two, however, regulation would be required and may differ depending on the structure of the entity.
5. Recommendation 2.2: Add an exception to the prohibition against the unauthorized practice of law permitting State-certified/registered/approved entities to use technology-driven legal services delivery systems to engage in authorized practice of law activities.
B. Discussion and Possible Action on Recommendations Issued for Public Comment Concerning Exceptions to the Unauthorized Practice of Law, Including Consideration of Concepts for Regulation
5. Recommendation 2.2: Add an exception to the prohibition against the unauthorized practice of law permitting State-certified/registered/approved entities to use technology-driven legal services delivery systems to engage in authorized practice of law activities.
6. Recommendation 2.3: State-certified/registered/approved entities using technology-driven legal services delivery systems should not be limited or restrained by any concept or definition of “artificial intelligence.” Instead, regulation should be limited to technologies that perform the analytical functions of an attorney.
B. Discussion and Possible Action on Recommendations Issued for Public Comment Concerning Exceptions to the Unauthorized Practice of Law, Including Consideration of Concepts for Regulation
6. Recommendation 2.3: State-certified/registered/approved entities using technology-driven legal services delivery systems should not be limited or restrained by any concept or definition of “artificial intelligence.” Instead, regulation should be limited to technologies that perform the analytical functions of an attorney.
7. Recommendation 2.4: The Regulator of State-certified/registered/approved entities using technology-driven legal services delivery systems must establish adequate ethical standards that regulate both the provider and the technology itself.
B. Discussion and Possible Action on Recommendations Issued for Public Comment Concerning Exceptions to the Unauthorized Practice of Law, Including Consideration of Concepts for Regulation
7. Recommendation 2.4: The Regulator of State-certified/registered/approved entities using technology-driven legal services delivery systems must establish adequate ethical standards that regulate both the provider and the technology itself.
8. Recommendation 2.5: Client communications with technology-driven legal services delivery systems that engage in authorized practice of law activities should receive equivalent protections afforded by the attorney-client privilege and a lawyer’s ethical duty of confidentiality.
B. Discussion and Possible Action on Recommendations Issued for Public Comment Concerning Exceptions to the Unauthorized Practice of Law, Including Consideration of Concepts for Regulation
8. Recommendation 2.5: Client communications with technology-driven legal services delivery systems that engage in authorized practice of law activities should receive equivalent protections afforded by the attorney-client privilege and a lawyer’s ethical duty of confidentiality.
C. Discussion and Possible Action on Recommendations Issued for Public Comment Concerning Fee Sharing and Non-Lawyer Ownership, Including Consideration of Concepts for Regulation
1. Recommendation 3.1: Adoption of Proposed Rule 5.4 [Alternative 1]
C. Discussion and Possible Action on Recommendations Issued for Public Comment Concerning Fee Sharing and Non-Lawyer Ownership, Including Consideration of Concepts for Regulation
1. Recommendation 3.1: Adoption of Proposed Rule 5.4 [Alternative 1]
2. Recommendation 3.2: Adoption of Proposed Rule 5.4 [Alternative 2]
C. Discussion and Possible Action on Recommendations Issued for Public Comment Concerning Fee Sharing and Non-Lawyer Ownership, Including Consideration of Concepts for Regulation
2. Recommendation 3.2: Adoption of Proposed Rule 5.4 [Alternative 2]
3. Recommendation 3.3: Adoption of a version of ABA Model Rule 5.7 that fosters investment in, and development of, technology-driven delivery systems including associations with nonlawyers and nonlawyer entities
C. Discussion and Possible Action on Recommendations Issued for Public Comment Concerning Fee Sharing and Non-Lawyer Ownership, Including Consideration of Concepts for Regulation
3. Recommendation 3.3: Adoption of a version of ABA Model Rule 5.7 that fosters investment in, and development of, technology-driven delivery systems including associations with nonlawyers and nonlawyer entities
D. Discussion and Possible Action on General Recommendations Issued for Public Comment and Other Concepts Raised by the Public Comments Received and the Testimony from the August 10, 2019 Public Hearing
1. Recommendation 1.2: Lawyers in traditional practice and law firms may perform legal and law-related services under the current regulatory framework but should strive to expand access to justice through innovation with the use of technology and modifications in relationships with nonlawyers.
D. Discussion and Possible Action on General Recommendations Issued for Public Comment and Other Concepts Raised by the Public Comments Received and the Testimony from the August 10, 2019 Public Hearing
1. Recommendation 1.2: Lawyers in traditional practice and law firms may perform legal and law-related services under the current regulatory framework but should strive to expand access to justice through innovation with the use of technology and modifications in relationships with nonlawyers.
2. Recommendation 1.3: The implementation body shall: (1) identify, develop, and/or commission objective and diverse methods, metrics, and empirical data sources to assess the impact of the ATILS reforms on the delivery of legal services, including access to justice; and (2) establish reporting requirements for ongoing monitoring and analysis.
D. Discussion and Possible Action on General Recommendations Issued for Public Comment and Other Concepts Raised by the Public Comments Received and the Testimony from the August 10, 2019 Public Hearing
2. Recommendation 1.3: The implementation body shall: (1) identify, develop, and/or commission objective and diverse methods, metrics, and empirical data sources to assess the impact of the ATILS reforms on the delivery of legal services, including access to justice; and (2) establish reporting requirements for ongoing monitoring and analysis.
3. Recommendation 2.6: The regulatory process contemplated by Recommendation 2.2 should be funded by application and renewal fees. The fee structure may be scaled based on multiple factors.
D. Discussion and Possible Action on General Recommendations Issued for Public Comment and Other Concepts Raised by the Public Comments Received and the Testimony from the August 10, 2019 Public Hearing
3. Recommendation 2.6: The regulatory process contemplated by Recommendation 2.2 should be funded by application and renewal fees. The fee structure may be scaled based on multiple factors.
4. Recommendation 3.0: Adoption of a new Comment [1] to rule 1.1 “Competence” stating that the duty of competence includes a duty to keep abreast of the changes in the law and its practice, including the benefits and risks associated with relevant technology
D. Discussion and Possible Action on General Recommendations Issued for Public Comment and Other Concepts Raised by the Public Comments Received and the Testimony from the August 10, 2019 Public Hearing
4. Recommendation 3.0: Adoption of a new Comment [1] to rule 1.1 “Competence” stating that the duty of competence includes a duty to keep abreast of the changes in the law and its practice, including the benefits and risks associated with relevant technology
5. Recommendation 3.4: Adoption of revised California Rules of Professional Conduct 7.1–7.5 to improve communication regarding availability of legal services using technology in consideration of: (1) the versions of Model Rules 7.1–7.3 adopted by the ABA in 2018; (2) the 2015 and 2016 Association of Professional Responsibility Lawyers reports on advertising rules; and (3) advertising rules adopted in other jurisdictions.
D. Discussion and Possible Action on General Recommendations Issued for Public Comment and Other Concepts Raised by the Public Comments Received and the Testimony from the August 10, 2019 Public Hearing
5. Recommendation 3.4: Adoption of revised California Rules of Professional Conduct 7.1-7.5 to improve communication regarding availability of legal services using technology in consideration of: (1) the versions of Model Rules 7.1-7.3 adopted by the ABA in 2018; (2) the 2015 and 2016 Association of Professional Responsibility Lawyers reports on advertising rules; and (3) advertising rules adopted in other jurisdictions.
6. Comments received on concepts not considered by the Task Force.
D. Discussion and Possible Action on General Recommendations Issued for Public Comment and Other Concepts Raised by the Public Comments Received and the Testimony from the August 10, 2019 Public Hearing
6. Comments received on concepts not considered by the Task Force.
Closed Session

In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, those requiring accommodations at this meeting should notify Angela Marlaud at 415-538-2116. Please provide notification at least 72 hours prior to the meeting to allow sufficient time to make arrangements for accommodations at this meeting.

The notice and agenda is available at: Meetings: Board of Trustees



None.