Frequently Asked Questions

UPL stands for the unauthorized practice of law. In most states, only licensed attorneys (with a college degree, a JD, and a bar license) can practice law.

There is no common definition for the “practice of law.” Each jurisdiction has its own definition of the practice of law, and even attorneys are often unsure exactly what this means. However, common key elements of what jurisdictions consider the practice of law are giving legal advice (versus legal information), holding oneself out as an attorney, preparing court documents, and appearing in court on behalf of a client.

Each state has their own guidance, but consequences for engaging in the unauthorized practice of law can range from fines to felony charges and imprisonment.

In nearly every state in the US, unauthorized practice of law restrictions prohibit anyone who is not a licensed attorney from providing legal services. Regulatory reform (which includes UPL reform) refers to the re-regulation of the practice of law to allow people who aren’t attorneys but have specialized legal training to provide legal services, including legal advice, to community members.

In the United States, there is no right to counsel for civil cases. (The Right to Civil Counsel | American Academy of Arts and Sciences) This means that if a person is experiencing debt collection, domestic violence, or eviction, they are not guaranteed a lawyer. The under-resourced nonprofit legal service sector lacks the capacity to serve many who seek their services: 93% of legal problems experienced by low-income Americans receive inadequate or no civil legal assistance. (Legal Services Corporation, 2022 Justice Gap Report) The historic exclusion of low-income and other marginalized populations from access to justice perpetuates poverty cycles and system-level failures.

By authorizing new pathways for people other than lawyers to know and use the law, regulatory reform presents an opportunity for community members who otherwise cannot access legal help to receive advice and problem-solving help from trusted members of their community. The ability to successfully know and use the law plays a critical role in legal empowerment, poverty reduction, and social change.

DV advocates have been authorized to give legal advice in Alaska, Arizona, Illinois, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Nebraska, Utah, and Washington.

As part of our research, we took a deep dive into the DV legal advocacy initiatives happening in Arizona, Utah, and Alaska. Learn more about UPL reform nationally, as part of the legal regulatory reform movement, at https://iaals.du.edu/knowledge-center.

Some states are moving at a faster pace to implement UPL reform than other states. Use the UPL database to explore whether your state is currently implementing UPL reform.

How to use this toolkit to encourage UPL reform in your state:

1. Use this toolkit to document how you would pilot a project that trains DV advocates to give legal advice. Use information from Research Question 4 to illustrate what your organization’s existing training looks like and compare it to training at other organizations. Use information from Research Question 4 and Research Question 5 to illustrate what training for upskilling advocates should include and what best practices for this upskilling includes.
2. Use this toolkit to identify the UPL restriction in your jurisdiction that would need to be amended. UPL restrictions are listed in the UPL database.
3. Use this toolkit to understand who the decision-maker is that has the ability to reform UPL. Entities who are leading the charge for UPL reform differ in each jurisdiction.
4. Use this toolkit to tell the story about why your community needs this change. Use information from Research Question 1, Research Question 2, and Research Question 3 to illustrate your community’s story and the need for change. (We know from the findings on Research Questions 1 through 3 that…)

States that have created UPL reform opportunities report challenges from the bar, which is often concerned about relinquishing control over their legal service monopoly. In addition, it takes time and resources to advance UPL reform through rule-making / rule-changing processes. UPL reform without careful design and evaluation can create new consumer harms. And new UPL-reform-based programs that do not consider diverse stakeholder perspectives may inadvertently create new barriers to participation. For more information about the risk and opportunity of UPL reform particularly as an access to justice strategy, visit bit.ly/i4Jregreform.

If you are in a jurisdiction where it seems unlikely that UPL can be reformed to allow DV advocates to give legal advice, our research demonstrates that training advocates to know how to work at the top of the “legal information” space, and to have clarity about what they can and can’t do without violating UPL, maximizes the help DV advocates can offer. Check out our Research Question 4 page for findings and recommendations on DV advocate training. You can also learn more about community-centered legal empowerment models in non-UPL-reform states by visiting organizations like legallink.org.

The Department of Justice defines domestic violence as:

“Domestic violence is a pattern of abusive behavior in any relationship that is used by one partner to gain or maintain power and control over another intimate partner. Domestic violence can be physical, sexual, emotional, economic, psychological, or technological actions or threats of actions or other patterns of coercive behavior that influence another person within an intimate partner relationship. This includes any behaviors that intimidate, manipulate, humiliate, isolate, frighten, terrorize, coerce, threaten, blame, hurt, injure, or wound someone.”

For purposes of this project, when we refer to lay legal advocacy, we are referring to legal advocacy that supports survivors of domestic violence during their involvement with criminal and/or civil legal processes. This advocacy can take many forms, tailored to the unique needs of each survivor. Legal advocacy may extend beyond the immediate domestic violence case and can include indirect legal needs such as tenant rights and legal name changes. When we refer to advocates we are talking about non-attorney advocates (including but not limited to DV advocates).

According to the Legal Services Corporation 2022 Justice Gap Measurement Survey, 98% of low-income domestic violence survivors experienced at least one additional civil legal problem in the past year, and 87% experienced at least five. While organizations providing support services to DV survivors often refer survivors facing civil legal issues to legal aid organizations, 88% of problems experienced by low-income survivors receive inadequate or no legal help.

We interviewed and surveyed DV advocates, DV organization leadership, and subject-matter experts across the country from Spring 2023 to Winter 2023. We also conducted legal research to create our UPL database. Visit our methodology page to learn more.

Research question 1: Nationally, what gaps in their ability to help survivors do lay legal advocates experience when they limit their help to legal information, not legal advice?

Research question 2: Do lay legal advocates think UPL reform and the ability to give limited-scope legal advice as part of their services would be helpful to them and the survivors they serve?

Research question 3: What civil legal needs do lay legal advocates most want / need to advise DV survivors regarding?

Research question 4: What additional legal training would lay legal advocates want and need to feel equipped to give limited-scope legal advice?

Research Question 5: What do subject matter experts consider the best practices for lay and licensed legal advocacy for DV survivors, in areas such as training/certification, supervision/mentorship, and professional responsibility?

i4J designs, builds, and tests disruptive solutions to the justice gap.

Housed at both the University of Arizona James E. Rogers College of Law and the University of Utah David Eccles School of Business, i4J applies design- and systems-thinking methodologies to expose inequalities in the justice system and create new, replicable, and scalable strategies for legal empowerment.

To learn more visit our website: https://www.innovation4justice.org/.