Millions of Californians face civil legal proceedings each year without legal representation, highlighting significant disparities in access to justice within the state’s civil court system. In cases such as debt collection and eviction, defendants typically appear without attorneys, while plaintiffs, often represented by lawyers, hold a considerable advantage.

Data from Los Angeles illustrates these disparities starkly: just 2% of individuals sued for debt have legal counsel, contrasted with nearly universal representation among debt collectors. In eviction proceedings, only about 13% of tenants have attorneys, compared with 92% of landlords. The consequences of these cases can be severe, including loss of housing or adverse financial judgments. Unlike criminal proceedings, where defendants have a constitutional right to counsel, civil litigants generally do not have access to appointed lawyers, forcing many to navigate complex legal processes alone.

One key factor contributing to this imbalance is California’s regulatory framework governing the practice of law. Like nearly every state, California prohibits the unauthorized practice of law and restricts legal assistance to licensed attorneys. This binary framework limits legal help to either hiring costly lawyers or proceeding without professional aid, a situation that often disadvantages low-income individuals.

Efforts to address this issue have emerged over the past decade. Six years ago, California nearly enacted reforms that would have expanded the pool of legal service providers beyond fully licensed lawyers. However, the initiative stalled amid opposition from legal professionals concerned about potential encroachments on their monopoly.

Now, the California Supreme Court is considering a rule change that would allow a new category of legal service providers, known as community justice workers, to assist individuals in specific civil legal contexts. These nonlawyer professionals would be trained and overseen by recognized legal aid organizations and authorized to provide limited legal assistance under narrowly defined conditions. The model aims to mirror approaches in other professions, such as healthcare, where nonphysician practitioners deliver certain levels of care effectively while working under supervision.

Research across multiple jurisdictions and legal fields supports the effectiveness of trained nonlawyer legal service providers. Studies have found that specialized nonlawyers often perform at levels comparable to, or in some cases exceeding, those of generalist lawyers. An evaluation of child welfare cases in Michigan, for example, showed nonlawyer advocates outperforming lawyers without specialized training. Similarly, in administrative hearings in Wisconsin, the quality of advocacy correlated more strongly with specialization than with legal licensure. A comprehensive study covering 82,000 cases further noted that nonlawyer outcomes were favorable relative to lawyer representation.

Concerns raised by legal organizations about risks to clients from nonlawyer providers have not been substantiated by evidence. When scrutinized, instances of client harm attributable to nonlawyer advocates have proven minimal compared to the vast volume of cases managed. Regulatory safeguards, such as mandatory training, supervision by licensed entities, and malpractice insurance, form part of the proposed framework to prevent low-quality service or fraud.

Several states have already implemented similar community justice worker models with encouraging results. Alaska’s program assisted thousands of people in recovering millions in wrongly denied food benefits. Utah’s initiative helped domestic violence victims obtain protective orders at rates significantly higher than statewide averages. Delaware reported substantial housing assistance services through comparable programs.

Although the proposed rule change will not address all civil legal needs—particularly those involving government agencies or immigration—it represents a meaningful opportunity to reduce access barriers for underserved populations. Advocates argue that with the evidence supporting the model’s effectiveness and safety, California’s highest court has an urgent opportunity to implement a practical reform to improve equity in civil justice.