Stanford researchers discuss new data on legal services innovations in Arizona and Utah on a Legal Services Corporation’s “Talk Justice” podcast.
Host Cat Moon is joined by David Freeman Engstrom, co-director of Stanford’s Deborah L. Rhode Center on the Legal Profession, and Natalie Knowlton, Rhode Center’s associate director for Legal Innovation.
Five years ago, Arizona and Utah launched experiments in legal services delivery. Arizona created opportunities for alternative business structures by eliminating the requirement for attorney-owned law firms. Utah’s regulatory “sandbox” did the same and allowed new service delivery models to emerge by relaxing unauthorized practice of law (UPL) rules.
Now Stanford has published a report, “Legal Innovation After Reform: Five Years of Data on Regulatory Change,” which provides comprehensive data on what worked, what didn't and what it means for expanding access to justice. These findings build on a previous report that the Rhode Center published after the first two years these regulatory reforms were enacted.
Freeman Engstrom says that while other sectors like technology have experienced substantial innovation, the legal sector has remained relatively stagnant. He believes that the desire to move legal services forward has been a major motivation for Arizona and Utah’s experiments.
“In something like 75% of the 20 million civil cases filed in American courts each year, at least one side lacks a lawyer,” says Freeman Engstrom. “And these are really consequential cases—they include things like debt collection actions, evictions, mortgage foreclosure cases, lots of family law matters.”
Freeman Engstrom explains that there is a clear need to increase the supply of accessible legal help. The researchers note that UPL reform appears to be particularly important for reaching low-income populations.
“The Utah sandbox does highlight for me that there is a strong appetite for community justice workers, for non-lawyers who are embedded in community organizations, and I also think this is an opportunity for the profession,” says Knowlton.
So far, the approaches taken by entities authorized to provide legal services in both states have largely not leveraged technology beyond basic websites.
According to the researchers, the lack of technology-centered proposals could be due to factors like the cost of developing new tech, the uncertainty of the future of these regulatory reforms and concerns around deploying AI.
Between Stanford’s 2022 report and this 2025 follow-up, Utah has added additional eligibility criteria for authorized entities, resulting in a steep reduction of 39 sandbox entities in 2022 to 11 in 2025.
“We should continue to pursue entity-level reform because I think there is still the possibility of really responsible, innovative uses of technology in the direct-to-consumer space. I think it's very likely to ‘raise all boats’ in a technological sense,” Freeman Engstrom says.
Talk Justice episodes are available online and on Spotify, YouTube, and Apple Podcasts.
The podcast is sponsored by LSC’s Leaders Council.
Host Cat Moon is joined by David Freeman Engstrom, co-director of Stanford’s Deborah L. Rhode Center on the Legal Profession, and Natalie Knowlton, Rhode Center’s associate director for Legal Innovation.
Five years ago, Arizona and Utah launched experiments in legal services delivery. Arizona created opportunities for alternative business structures by eliminating the requirement for attorney-owned law firms. Utah’s regulatory “sandbox” did the same and allowed new service delivery models to emerge by relaxing unauthorized practice of law (UPL) rules.
Now Stanford has published a report, “Legal Innovation After Reform: Five Years of Data on Regulatory Change,” which provides comprehensive data on what worked, what didn't and what it means for expanding access to justice. These findings build on a previous report that the Rhode Center published after the first two years these regulatory reforms were enacted.
Freeman Engstrom says that while other sectors like technology have experienced substantial innovation, the legal sector has remained relatively stagnant. He believes that the desire to move legal services forward has been a major motivation for Arizona and Utah’s experiments.
“In something like 75% of the 20 million civil cases filed in American courts each year, at least one side lacks a lawyer,” says Freeman Engstrom. “And these are really consequential cases—they include things like debt collection actions, evictions, mortgage foreclosure cases, lots of family law matters.”
Freeman Engstrom explains that there is a clear need to increase the supply of accessible legal help. The researchers note that UPL reform appears to be particularly important for reaching low-income populations.
“The Utah sandbox does highlight for me that there is a strong appetite for community justice workers, for non-lawyers who are embedded in community organizations, and I also think this is an opportunity for the profession,” says Knowlton.
So far, the approaches taken by entities authorized to provide legal services in both states have largely not leveraged technology beyond basic websites.
According to the researchers, the lack of technology-centered proposals could be due to factors like the cost of developing new tech, the uncertainty of the future of these regulatory reforms and concerns around deploying AI.
Between Stanford’s 2022 report and this 2025 follow-up, Utah has added additional eligibility criteria for authorized entities, resulting in a steep reduction of 39 sandbox entities in 2022 to 11 in 2025.
“We should continue to pursue entity-level reform because I think there is still the possibility of really responsible, innovative uses of technology in the direct-to-consumer space. I think it's very likely to ‘raise all boats’ in a technological sense,” Freeman Engstrom says.
Talk Justice episodes are available online and on Spotify, YouTube, and Apple Podcasts.
The podcast is sponsored by LSC’s Leaders Council.
––––––––––––––––––––
Subscribe to the Legal News!
https://legalnews.com/Home/Subscription
Full access to public notices, articles, columns, archives, statistics, calendar and more
Day Pass Only $4.95!
One-County $80/year
Three-County & Full Pass also available
