IDY.LLLT.com Limited License Legal Technician
April 17, 2021
Honorable Justices of the Washington State Supreme Court P.O. Box 40929 Olympia, WA 98504-0929
RE: Public comments regarding sunsetting of LLLT license submitted prior to onset of official public comment period
Dear Honorable Justices:
I write to ensure that comments submitted to the Court after its letter decision of June 5, 2020 to sunset the LLLT license, and before the official public comment period opened in January 2021, are properly accounted for in the public record and considered by the Court.
In all, there were 60 comments in opposition to the sunsetting of the LLLT license as follows:
WA Citizens: 17 LLLTs and LLLT students: 25 Colleges: 5 LLLT clients: 6 Legal organizations: 4 Attorneys: 3
Those letters and emails are summarized in a table on the following pages and are attached as pp. 1 – 135 to this letter.
Sincerely,
Christine M. Carpenter, LLLT
myLLLT.com · 2367 Tacoma Ave S, Tacoma, WA 98402 · (253) 457-0967
Date of submission Name of commenter Page number WASHINGTON CITIZENS Undated Holly Hess 1 6/15/2020 Catherine Paxton 2 6/17/2020 Judith Potter 3 6/20/2020 Gena Di Labio 4 6/20/2020 Teresa Dix 6 6/25/2020 Kristi Gresham 7 6/25/2020 Nancy L. 8 6/25/2020 Penelope Guntermann 10 6/28/2020 Mary Waggoner 11 7/1/2020 Teresa Dix 12 7/2/2020 Pam Madison 13 7/3/2020 Joan Riedel 14 7/5/2020 Sally Lider 15 7/16/2020 Ann Brooking 16 7/16/2020 Donna These 17 8/8/2020 Rose Ness 19 LLLT STUDENTS AND LLLTs 6/6/2020 Kristina Williams 21 6/10/2020 Jennifer Kobayashi 23 6/11/2020 Angela Guadamuz 24 6/11/2020 Lena Robell 26 6/11/2020 Michael Begley 27 6/12/2020 Olivia Schroder 29 6/13/2020 Laura Mclean 30 6/13/2020 Stacy Davis 32 6/17/2020 Charity Rotinski 33 6/17/2020 Cynthia Silva 35 6/18/2020 Sherri Donley 36 6/22/2020 Stacy Davis 38 6/24/2020 Connie Major 41 6/25/2020 Tina Palazza 44 6/26/2020 Angela Wright 48 6/29/2020 Carol Peterson 52 6/29/2020 Highline students (signed by 16 students) 53
2 | Page
7/1/2020 Alaina Slater 56 7/4/2020 Melinda Jackson 57 7/4/2020 Melissa Albert 60 7/11/2020 Ranae York 67 7/28/2020 Elissa Dunsmore 68 8/30/2020 Heather Christopher 70 10/16/2020 Lisa Alison 71 COLLEGES 6/10/2020 Whatcom Community College 73 6/11/2020 Tacoma Community College 74 6/12/2020 Spokane Community College 76 6/19/2020 Edmonds College 78 7/1/2020 Whatcom Community College 83 LLLT CLIENTS 6/12/2020 Yesenia Avelar 85 6/15/2020 Leonard McDonald 86 6/22/2020 Judy Stilson 87 6/26/2020 Chantel Turner 88 6/29/2020 Billie Murray 90 7/21/2020 Elizabeth Lemon 93 LEGAL ORGANIZATIONS 6/19/2020 WSBA LLLT Board 94 7/17/2020 Pro Bono Council 120 8/19/2020 WSBA ATJ Board 124 Undated WSBA Low Bono Section 126 ATTORNEYS 6/17/2020 Kathryn Berger 130 7/1/2020 Alton McFadden 133 7/1/2020 Penny Henderson 134
3 | Page
Dear Justice Johnson,
I am a resident of the State ofWashington. I email you today to notify you of my disappointment regarding the sunset of the LLL T licensure, on the basis of the below considerations:
Cost - The program was 1 % of the WSBA's overali budget. More money was spent on publications and board members travel then the entire administration of this program.
Rules - The Court did not have public comment or get input from stakeholders. This is not the access the justice the Court has been posting on social media.
Disparate impact - this decision by the Court has a disparate impact on persons of color and those of lower income - the very ones you took an oath to help.
In this time of economic stress and political unrest, centered on racial disparities in access to justice, this was a particularly poor decision for the we!!-being of the people of Washington. Legal representation is economically well out of the reach of most people, especially but not limited to those with statistically lower incomes i.e. women and people of color, and the LLL T Program provided a path to remedying that issue.
Furthermore the LLLT licensure has potential to raise profits for the legal industry, for example a firm employing an LLLT would be able to bring in more business, since people who otherwise couldn't afford legal fees (and would simply forego legal assistance) would now be able to pay for the LLLT's services.
If there was not enough participation in the program, that should be remedied by promotion of the program, not by ending it. If there is good reason to end the program (inefficiency etc.) it shouid be replaced by an alternative program or plan - unfortunately there is no 'pian B', whiie all the efforts -and considerntion put towards creating a valid license, with educational and experience requirements commensurate with its limited scope, have been washed away suddenly with no public comment.
i ask thai: you reconsider i:his decision.
Sincerely,
Public comments in opposition to sunsetting of LLLT license 1 of 135 From: OFFICE RECEPTIONIST, CLERK To: Carlson, Susan; Lennon, Erin Subject: FW: LLL-T need support Date: Wednesday, July 15, 2020 12:34:00 PM
From: TheCathpax . [mailto: ] Sent: Wednesday, July 15, 2020 12:30 PM To: OFFICE RECEPTIONIST, CLERK
People need legal help all the time, but they often can't afford the costs of an attorney. LLL- T's fill a need which many more people can access.
Please do not do away with the program as it is very valuable.
Sincerely, Catherine Paxton Arlington, WA --
Public comments in opposition to sunsetting of LLLT license 2 of 135 Dawson, Seth
From: Sent: Wednesday, June 17, 2020 7:59 AM To: Carlson, Susan Subject: Limited License Legal Technician future
Dear Susan,
I am a recent community member addition to the Limited License Legal Technician Board (LLLT Board). I was asked to join the Board because of my 30-year business career experience.
I had heard about the LLLT license but it was not until I was on the Board that I learned the extent and depth of the program and all of the work the Board has done.
I think the Court's decision to sunset the program for financial reasons should be reviewed. The Board of Governors did not require the LLLT Board to even consider becoming budget neutral until January of 2020. That was not enough time for the Board to increase marketing or find other funds. If the license is sunset, the program should be given a year or two to explore alternative funding. Even Governor Grabecki said the Budget Committee was not being fair by making such immediate demands without giving us an opportunity to explore alternatives.
Just when the obstacles were being overcome and the program was on the verge of clearing the way for more students to get through the difficult and rigorous education required for the program, the rug has been pulled out from beneath them. There was no warning or recourse after many colleges have invested in developing the curriculum. This rash decision by the court looks very unfair to the community.
The court might rethink the target population for LLLTs. It is still an access to justice or access to the courthouse issue to have people of moderate means be able to navigate the courthouse legal system with LLLT assistance. Middle income people can barely afford an attorney, especially those who are working poor. Working poor and people of moderate means have virtually no programs to provide them with the means to meet their civil legal needs.
You have given the LLLT Board an almost impossible task – to find a way to have a poverty population support their own legal services. They have almost done that by providing for limited services to people in other income brackets. Where legal aid funds immediate legal assistance, the LLLT program leverages the education and experience by providing legal services for a minimal overhead cost compared to the benefits.
We are aware that attorneys are threatened by the presence of this growing field and demand for access, however those in power who have shot this down have a conflict with the very essence of the program.
The Board has worked hard to balance the Court’s and the legal community’s requests – have a program where the practitioners are qualified and educated, offering some security in the integrity of the license. The approximate four- year process to become a LLLT makes the immediate demand for more LLLTs to be licensed and in the pipeline difficult. Please give the LLLT Board more time to explore marketing and funding. At a minimum please give the students and candidates in the pipeline a more reasonable amount of time to finish their program.
Thank you for your consideration,
Judith Potter
1 Public comments in opposition to sunsetting of LLLT license 3 of 135 From: OFFICE RECEPTIONIST, CLERK To: Carlson, Susan; Lennon, Erin Subject: FW: Decision regardingLimited-License Legal Technician Program Date: Monday, June 22, 2020 8:19:26 AM
From: dilabiog dilabiog [mailto: ] Sent: Saturday, June 20, 2020 5:03 PM To: OFFICE RECEPTIONIST, CLERK
Dear Justices:
It has come to my attention that the Supreme Court of Washington has decided to end the Limited License Legal Technician Program, (LLL-T) which provides professional, affordable, legal support to those of low- income and minority populations. A much needed service in light of the social, economic, and racial inequalities in our state and across the country.
It is my understanding that the court made this decision without public comment, without consultation with the Limited License Legal Technician professionals, or asking any of those who benefited from the services of a LLL-T provider. It seems quite unjust to the many in need that the lawyers with the Board of Governors want to restrict the legal market only to those who can afford their very expensive fees.
As a (now retired) clinical psychologist who worked with couples going through divorce proceedings or planning to divorce it was evident that the party, usually the husband, with greater financial resources had a huge advantage because legal fees were and are so steep. Also, women tended to remain in uncomfortable if not dangerous relationships for fear of losing custody of children even though they were the primary care givers. So it was with great appreciation that I read of the LLL-T program which would provide affordable legal recourse to those of limited means. It's with dismay that I view the Supreme Court ruling axing this valuable, needed program.
Therefore,I'm requesting the court to reconsider its decision and restore the LLL-T program in the State of Washington so that those of modest means may obtain affordable legal services. It is my understanding that this program does not negatively impact practicing lawyers and in fact may enhance their incomes.
Your reconsideration of this decision is welcome and appreciated.
Respectfully,
Public comments in opposition to sunsetting of LLLT license 4 of 135
Gena DiLabio, Ph. D.
Public comments in opposition to sunsetting of LLLT license 5 of 135 From: OFFICE RECEPTIONIST, CLERK To: Carlson, Susan; Lennon, Erin Subject: FW: LLL-T program Date: Monday, June 22, 2020 8:24:38 AM
From: [email protected] [mailto ] Sent: Saturday, June 20, 2020 1:22 PM To: OFFICE RECEPTIONIST, CLERK
Dear Justices,
It has come to my attention that the Supreme Court of Washington has decided to end the Limited License Legal Technician Program, (LLL-T). The LLL-T's provide professional, affordable, legal support to those of low income and minority populations, a much needed service in light of the social, economic, and racial inequalities in our state and across the country.
The court made this decision without public comment, without consultation with the Limited License Legal Technician professionals, or asking anyone who has benefited from the services provided by a LLL-T provider. It is terribly unjust to the many in need that the lawyers with the Board of Governors want to restrict the legal market to only those who can afford their incredibly high priced legal fees.
If my sister was able to have access to the affordable services of an LLL-T I believe her life would not have ended up in the shambles of financial ruin. She is not alone in her misfortune of not being able to afford a lawyer.
I'm asking the court to please reconsider their decision and restore the ongoing licensing of LLL-T's in the State of Washington. When one person in need benefits from the professional services of a LLL- T there is a positive ripple effect in the greater community.
Thank you for your consideration concerning this matter.
Respectfully,
Teresa Dix
Public comments in opposition to sunsetting of LLLT license 6 of 135 From: OFFICE RECEPTIONIST, CLERK To: Carlson, Susan; Lennon, Erin Subject: FW: Ruling on LLLT program Date: Thursday, June 25, 2020 8:31:49 AM
-----Original Message----- From: Kristin Gresham [mailto: ] Sent: Thursday, June 25, 2020 8:24 AM To: OFFICE RECEPTIONIST, CLERK
To Whom It May Concern,
I am a resident of the State of Washington. I email you today to notify you of my dismay regarding the sunset of the LLLT program.
Cost - The program was 1% of the overall budget. More money was spent on publications and board members travel then the entire administration of this program.
Rules – The Court did not have public comment or get input from stakeholders. This is not the access the justice the Court has been posting on social media.
Impact – this decision by the court has a unequal impact on persons of color and those of lower income – the very ones you took an oath help. This is both for clients and students.
ADD Personal story about services with LLLT or your extreme search for legal assistance or lack of hours of arability. Two sentences.
Have you given up on equality in access to legal services? Revise your rule on the LLLT Program.
Thank you. Kristin Gresham
Public comments in opposition to sunsetting of LLLT license 7 of 135 Dear Washington State Supreme Court Justice,
As a citizen of Washington State, I've been mostly proud to live in this progressive community. So J applaud you for your June 4 letter to members of the Judiciary and the Legal Community (our state's legal system.) You said so much that was inspirfing and worthy in that letter.
So J was appalled and disappointed to learn that on almost the same date. you voted 7-2 to sunset the LLLT program, a program designed to provide quality legal access to low income people and to people of color. (Kudos to the two Justices who east dissenting votes.)
ln your June 4 letter you state your commitment to those who suffer from systemic " inequities or the lack of financial, personal, or systemic support." But per your vote, your commitment doesn't extend to the LLLT program. Oh, the irony. I am a middle class white woman who because my extended family includes a number of fine, ethical corporate lawyers, has been given a glimpse into a world of great privilege. But I have friends (also· middle class white women) with stories of struggling to access/navigate/afford decent legal help. So I can barely imagine how difficult, eve11 impossible, it is for poor people and for people of color to access tbis help-an issue-I would certainly label as systemic.
According to Justice Madsen's powerfully written dissent, two reasons for the LLLT sunset vote were " low participation'' and "costs.... Oh, deja vu all over again! During my long career, l worked in banking for some time, and those were the 'EXACT two excuses always given for cutting diversity programs like home loan programs to blacks and others. Low participation? Did we take the time back then to uncover and remove obstacles like difficult applkations, etc. etc. Costs? We are now reckoning with the truths of "pay now or pay later." And speaking of costs--how often we see this program cutting play out! Despite decades, even centuries, of systemic inequality in our institutions, we too often develop new programs designed to combat the inequities, expect quick .change~a nd fhen prematurely say, "Oh, that didn' t work." How •Often our impatience wastes those start-up costs.
Ironically (that word again), your vote comes at a time when we are recognizing that our institutions- education, policing, banking, health care, etc.- while made up of generally well-intentioned individuals- must take a look at their own systemic biases. Your June 4 letter suggests the legal system (including the Bar Association, l assume) is no different. You write, "Too often we feel bound by tradition, the way things have "always" been." Is it possible that in addition to " t'ow participation and cost," some Bar Association members have difficulty with programs that aren't "traditional" ... that offer solutions that disrupt 01e "way things h,ave afways been done" ? Programs like the LLLT? You go on to say, ''... even the most venerable precedent must be struck down When it is incorrect and harmful." Strong words. I would add: eve1i the most venerable JNSTITUTJONS must be challenged,
I know challenging institutions with long histories and deeply entrenched beliefs is difficult. But iis your June 4 letter mentions, "liste;ioing and ack,nowledgiog .. , will enrich and infonn our shared cause of dismantling systematic racism." Dismantling systemic injustice, too? How much listening and ack.nowl~dging did your decision to sunset t he LLLT program involve? ft's my understanding that you primarily listened to the Bar Association, but not to the clients, the practitioners, the collaborators who worked bard and long to develop the program. ln another career iteration~ I worked for a state-funded organization and whenever "sunset" time came up, we attended hearings and made our voices heard. Before the LLLT vote, there were no hearings? No public comments? How is that even possible?
Your June 4 letter ends with the words "moral imperative." A fitting ending. Given your commitment to tackling the issues of systemic racial (and I would hope, class) injustice in our legal system, J hope you Wil'I see teconsidering your vote oo the LLLT program as your moral imperative. Thank you.
Public comments in opposition to sunsetting of LLLT license 8 of 135 iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii;;;;;;;;;:=---~--=- 1 /4
11 1i!, i\ 1 iii i1!l 11h 1 ,iii i ! ii 1, ii mi; ll i ! Ii ii hi l\ 111111 Ii l\ 1~i l ~---~------
Public comments in opposition to sunsetting of LLLT license 9 of 135 June 25, 2020
Justice Stephen G. Gonzales PO Box40929 . Olympia, WA 98504-0929
Dear Justice Gonzales,
I am a resident of the State of Washington. I write you today to ask you to reconsider your decision regarding the sunset of the LLLT program and to support its ongoing existence.
This program, at minimal cost, serves (and hopefully for years in the future will continue to serve) thousands of people who desperately need solid legal advice but cannot afford lawyers' fees.
Given your thoughtful letter about systemic racism and injustice, I find it incomprehensible (and appalling) that you would rule against a program that addresses one small part of that systemic injustice within our Washington State legal system.
I am also disturbed by your not allowing public comment or input from stakeholders before making such a ruling. This is not the access to justice the Court has been posting on social media.
Cost - The program was 1% of the WSBA's overall budget. More money was spent on publications and board members travel then the entire administration of this program.
Disparate impact - this decision by the Court has a disparate impact on persons of color and those of lower income - the very ones you took an oath to help.
I am a retired Mental Health Counselor and a Lutheran pastor. During my 40+ years of providing care for people, I encountered dozens of people who desperately needed the affordable legal advice that only LLLT's can provide. At one point in my life, I myself was able to access legal advice for a divorce only because my parents had resources to pay for it. Not everyone has such advantages.
For all these reasons, I ask that you reconsider this decision and remove the sunset of the LLLT program.
Thank you. /J~Y~-- Rev. Pene1ope Guntermann, M.Div., M.A.
Public comments in opposition to sunsetting of LLLT license 10 of 135 June 28, 2020
Charles W. Johnson, Associate Chief Justice P.o. Box 40929 Olympia, WA 98504-0929
Dear Associate Chief Justice Johnson,
As a resident of Washington state, I am dismayed at your decision to approve disbanding the licensed program making legal support accessible for economically challenged state residents.
The LLLT program has served hundreds of low-in¢ome residents in its dozen years and given those residents a chance to overcome the very inequity Justices addressed in your June 4 letter committing to "injustice still plaguing our country." Your letter spoke specifically to racism and your collective commitment to ending it. It is ironic that the LLLT program has met the needs of many people of color and others of low income and helped them attain justice.
-- ' ,k: .. :-~·-·- -- - :~ - You wrote your beautiful letter of commitment to ending racial injustice on June 4 -- the same day vou announced, without any pub!ic process, that you were eliminating one of the pathways to social justice for all low-income citizens -- a disproportionate number of which are people of color.
Please re-evaluate and reconsider. The cost of the program is minimal; the impact is maximum. Almost 200 individuals have already spent thousands of dollars and hundreds of hours earning the license -- only to see their pathway to that work and that public service blocked.
Public comments in opposition to sunsetting of LLLT license 11 of 135 From: OFFICE RECEPTIONIST, CLERK To: Carlson, Susan Subject: FW: LLL-T Date: Wednesday, July 1, 2020 1:55:35 PM
From: ] Sent: Wednesday, July 1, 2020 1:54 PM To: OFFICE RECEPTIONIST, CLERK Subject: LLL-T Dear Justices, At a time when so many Americans are incredibly vulnerable due to the pandemic, and as a result of the Trump administrations' undoing of so many social safety net programs, the courts decision to end the Limited License Legal Technician (LLL-T) program seems heartless. There is an excellent article in The New Republic (July/August 2020) that deserves the Justices reading. The article is, No Money, No Lawyer, No Justice: The Vast, Hidden Inequalities of the Civil Legal system. One of statistics in the article that really stands out is the fact that 71% of low-income Americans experience at least one civil legal problem a year, yet 86% of them receive either minimal or no legal help to deal with it. The LLL-T program offers a professional, affordable life line to those in Washington State who need legal services, and I hope the court will reverse their decision concerning the LLL-T program. Thank you for your consideration, Respectfully, Teresa Dix 3124 Dakota Drive Mount Vernon, Wa 98274 360 428 8875
Public comments in opposition to sunsetting of LLLT license 12 of 135 From: OFFICE RECEPTIONIST, CLERK To: Carlson, Susan; Lennon, Erin Subject: FW: Ending the LLL-T Program Date: Thursday, July 2, 2020 9:12:26 AM
From: Pam Madison [mailto:] Sent: Thursday, July 2, 2020 9:04 AM To: OFFICE RECEPTIONIST, CLERK Cc: Pam Madison Subject: Ending the LLL-T Program This is unconscionable. We are bellyaching about the throngs of homeless people in our Seattle area. Many of those became homeless as a result of the 2008 economic disaster. We are now in a new time of economic disaster. Doing away with this program that would be helpful to our most vulnerable is, in my mind a crime and irresponsible part of legislators, layers and their advocates. “The LLL-T's provide professional, affordable legal support to those most in need. Lawyers and the Board of Governors campaigned to restrict the legal market to only those who can afford their high fees, (HOW CAN THIS BE???)and the court made the decision without consulting the LLL-T's or the public they serve. “ This is simply not right. It’s a great way to open the door for more criticism of “those lazy poor people who can’t get it together.“ And they simply just don’t deserve and need help. What a set up, disgusting disgusting!!!!!! No Justice no peace no Justice no peace. For the record I’m a 72-year-old white woman I am out raged by this ignorant act. White male privilege???? Pam Madison
Public comments in opposition to sunsetting of LLLT license 13 of 135 RECE• 'ED JUL f 2020 WASl• INb"fON STATE ;;u, Rr r •~1.JLJ11 ·
Public comments in opposition to sunsetting of LLLT license 14 of 135 From: OFFICE RECEPTIONIST, CLERK To: Carlson, Susan Subject: FW: LLL-T Program should be available to those in need Date: Monday, July 6, 2020 8:07:04 AM
-----Original Message----- From: Sally Lider [mailto: ] Sent: Friday, July 3, 2020 2:25 PM To: OFFICE RECEPTIONIST,----- CLERK
The LLL-T's provide professional, affordable legal support to those most in need. Please don’t eliminate this program! Thank you.
Public comments in opposition to sunsetting of LLLT license 15 of 135 From: OFFICE RECEPTIONIST, CLERK To: Carlson, Susan; Lennon, Erin Subject: FW: I object to "sunsetting" the LLLT license Date: Thursday, July 16, 2020 8:05:47 AM
From: Ann Brooking [mailto Sent: Thursday, July 16, 2020 7:13 AM To: OFFICE RECEPTIONIST, CLERK
Dear Justices,
As a person of privilege I am writing to express my frustration and sadness at your decision to eliminate the LLLT. I am a substance use disorder professional and work at Catholic Community Services in Bellingham for $17.25 an hour. I talk to people daily who are caught in the criminal justice system due to addiction. The majority of them do not have funds to hire an attorney and the public defenders that might assist them have caseloads that render them too burdened to address individuals' problems adequately.
This is the time to change a system that has led to mass incarceration of folks who are battling the cycles of poverty, addiction, domestic violence, broken homes and prejudice. What you have decided tells me you are not on board with addressing our society's problems with homelessness and the like. You are not using your privilege to address these entrenched problems, but are showing us all that you are self serving and do not represent the most vulnerable. Because you know who the most vulnerable are I assume. It is children. The children of the people who cannot access representation for their legal problems. It is children who pay the biggest price and children who will grow up in compromised homes and broken families. And, when they become adults they will find themselves in the same situation as their parents. I find it hard to understand how you can sleep at night when you pull the rug out from under children in this way.
Please change your decision and support this program. Grow up and do what is right.
Sincerely, -Ann Brooking, MA
Public comments in opposition to sunsetting of LLLT license 16 of 135 v ashington Sta e Supreme Court
G..Ja...<;, \.-:, (\)+-•... ~~ :s ~ , ... w-...... c:..., u.. ~~ ;s\),..s. ~ ·, ~-.s f O ~M'~,----C\ 0 \ JM(• ~ I t.=,I\_ • 9_ tSO"'f.- O Public comments in opposition to sunsetting17 of ofLLLT 135 license (_,j~ ·• \~ \..'.) t.. fa..('e. ~ ~., \c. ~ "'1 ~ II) o.r..-\c.... e....J- C1t>~~ C' j .._ be-~e...r- ~\.._c:_,-.. t. r- ~ A..'~ -s-.~it:11"....._ t.~,:--~c.'2- I ~~,,_ &..~ C~ ~•, ~ t)_b~\. "-+ ""--~ "~ S-.,...~-.. ~ ~to~~"::- ~~~ ~u.t-..$). ~~ \a.!>M -..o~ (')rt t::.~\..~\~.._A b~n c...'9 \- +~ c...~.ft.4"~ ~~~ re.~11c.~--~~l.~~"""> + ...\I.---. -~J' ~ -..s,~~~~ f U...\.. \.~ c.. c.., ... tie-.~' . el~\..~ f'e..c.,\,~·,~Q.,r '.\ ~~ ~" ~LS,~"'-\- 4 ,..,, ~-4-CXa... C.""' l. 0 'oe...le\.e.. t • Public commentsC ,"3 in opposition~-..t.,"~' to sunsetting 18 of ofLLLT 135 license -~~~-~ L-t~-~ ~-~-- •• ~· From: Zeis, Lynda To: Carlson, Susan Subject: FW: LLLT program Date: Monday, August 10, 2020 9:03:43 AM Attachments: SoundIntegrationForBehavioralHealthcare_EmailSig_091216.png Lynda Zeis Judicial Admin. Asst. to Justice Sheryl Gordon McCloud Washington Supreme Court [email protected] ( (360) 357-2046 From: Rose Ness [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Saturday, August 8, 2020 1:27 PM To: Zeis, Lynda I am a resident of the State of Washington. I email you today to notify you of my disbelief and disapproval regarding the sunset of the LLLT program. Cost - The program was 1% of the WSBA’s overall budget. In 2019, the WSBA spent more money on publications and travel of board members than the entire administration of LLLT program. Rules – The Court did not provide a period of public comment, nor did they solicit any input from the program’s stakeholders before deciding to sunset the LLLT license. This is not the access the justice the Supreme Court has been posting on social media. Disparate impact – This decision by the Supreme Court has a disparate impact on persons of color and those of lower income – the very ones they took an oath to help. ADD Personal story about services with LLLT or your extreme search for legal assistance, lack of affordability, etc. I ask that you reconsider this decision. OR I request you contact the Supreme Court to reconsider this decision Thank you. Rose Ness [email protected] Public comments in opposition to sunsetting of LLLT license 19 of 135 Public comments in opposition to sunsetting of LLLT license 20 of 135 Dawson, Seth From: Carlson, Susan Sent: Tuesday, June 9, 2020 1:51 PM To: Stephens, Justice Debra L. Cc: Vandervort, Judy Subject: FW: Response to LLLT Termination FYI re sunsetting the LLLT From: Krystina Williams [mailto ] Sent: Tuesday, June 9, 2020 1:54 PM To: Carlson, Susan Good afternoon, I am writing to ask the Supreme Court to consider my statement and reconsider the termination of the LLLT program. I am in my third quarter at Whatcom Community college pursuing an LLLT degree. I entered this program with the hopes of becoming an LLLT in order to help those that are low income with their legal needs. There are many students I am currently enrolled with that have the same goals and by eliminating this program, you are putting an end to all the good LLLT’s could do for the community. When making the decision to eliminate the LLLT Program, the court has failed to consider the students that will be affected by this decision. There are many students, such as myself, who will face financial hardship brought on due to incurred expenses relating to classes necessary for the LLLT program. By choosing to eliminate this program you have limited the time they need to complete the LLT program and get certified forcing them to either take additional classes in order to finish before the deadline or switch their major altogether. The LLLT program was created in 2012 to help individuals who could not afford to hire a lawyer. In a letter dated June 5, 2020 written by Chief Justice Debra Stephens, she stated, “The program was an innovative attempt to increase access to legal services. However, after careful consideration of the overall costs of sustaining the program and the small number of interested individuals, a majority of the court determined that the LLLT program is not an effective way to meet these needs, and voted to sunset the program.” In her dissenting opinion, Justice Barbara A. Madsen called the financial criticism of the LLLT program “hollow” and said the court’s decision effectuated “the elimination of an independent legal license… What’s more, the court did so at a single meeting, without question or comment from LLLT license holders, legal practitioners, or the public at large,” Madsen wrote. “What took over a decade of toil to create, this court erased in an afternoon.” She added, “In no other professional area would a regulated license be so summarily erased with so little thought given to those who will be most affected.” A business plan the LLLT board submitted to the court this spring indicated it believed the program could generate enough revenue to cover the state bar’s direct expenses for administering the program by 2022 and cover all costs by 2029. The plan was contingent on the court approving new practice areas for inclusion—as had been contemplated when the program was created—and reducing some of the requirements to become a LLLT. I believe in the LLLT Program and the good intentions of its creators and that the court was foolish to reject the revisions and practice area expansion plan. I believe one of the main reasons the LLLT program has not generated more interest is due to its limited scope. If LLLTs were able to practice more freely it would lessen the dependence on outsourcing work to other attorneys or law firms and make the program more sustainable and effective. Especially in Whatcom County, there are countless individuals that are needing legal assistance 1 Public comments in opposition to sunsetting of LLLT license 21 of 135 but do not have the financial resources to hire an attorney. One of the certified LLLTs that has lectured at the college stated that she has to turn away potential clients due to her caseload. While there may not be an overflow of certified LLLTs, there is still a huge need for their services. These individuals should not suffer because the court feels as though, “the LLLT program is not an effective way to meet these needs.” There was no alternative plan provided to help these individuals. The LLLTs are what this community needs to help those that would not have access to legal services otherwise. I humbly ask the court to reconsider its decision to eliminate this program and consider not only the unnecessary financial hardship this would cause on current students, but also the impact this will have on low income individuals that desperately need legal services. I appreciate your time and consideration with this request. Sincerely, Krystina Williams 2 Public comments in opposition to sunsetting of LLLT license 22 of 135 Dawson, Seth From: OFFICE RECEPTIONIST, CLERK Sent: Wednesday, June 10, 2020 12:10 PM To: Carlson, Susan; Lennon, Erin Subject: FW: Limited License Legal Technician From: Jennifer Kobayashi [mailto ] Sent: Wednesday, June 10, 2020 12:00 PM To: OFFICE RECEPTIONIST, CLERK Good afternoon, I wanted to reach out and share my comments as it relates to the decision to sunset the LLLT program. As a long standing child and family advocate and my service as a Court Appointed Special Advocate for Multnomah County, it has always been my passion to serve the best interests of children and family. After rejection from law school to pursue a career in this field, I remained lost for a while in figuring out how to continue to serve families while being discouraged to reapply for law school. It could not have come at a better time to learn about becoming a Limited License Legal Technician and have the opportunity to provide affordable access to legal services for families. It was everything I could have possibly been looking for and I found myself again. I became eager and motivated and researched the accredited schools. I did everything I could to get started in a timely manner. I have just been accepted into TCC, maintained regular correspondence with my advisors about this program to assure I met all the requirements prior to enrollment, and was very excited to get started. It was really disheartening to not only hear that LLLT has ended, but after inquiring with the Washington State Bar, to learn that I was not in the pipeline to finish in time and become licensed by your July, 31 deadline. Please advise if there is anything I can do to convince reinstatement, as I'm sure many others are disappointed but inclined to put in the hard work it takes to better serve the families and communities in Washington. Respectfully, Jennifer Kobayashi 1 Public comments in opposition to sunsetting of LLLT license 23 of 135 Dawson, Seth From: Carlson, Susan Sent: Friday, June 12, 2020 4:19 PM To: Dawson, Seth Subject: FW: Sad, hurt, angry -----Original Message----- From: Angela Guadamuz [mailto: ] Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2020 1:29 PM To: OFFICE RECEPTIONIST, CLERK Good afternoon Justices, My name is Angela Guadamuz. I am a Latina, single mother of four children. I work full time for a government agency and volunteer time at family law clinic. Your decision to sunset the LLLT program has impacted me. A little background information. I completed my advance paralegal degree at Edmonds Community College August 2012. Around 2014 I heard about the LLLT pathway. I always wanted to be an attorney. I was excited. I seen this as something I could actually do. I had to go back and complete additional courses, (5) to be exact, to have core courses to be able to apply for UW LLLT cohort. Going to work all day then driving 40 minutes to school staying there till 10:20 getting home 11:00. Just to crawl in bed and do it again. I did it though. I applied to WSBA for LLLT. Excited. I started the cohort January 2019. There had been numerous obstacles my cohort as a whole faced. To begin with, the cohort did not start on time (fall quarter). They were hoping to increase numbers of students so delayed our starting to winter quarter. I finally started the cohort January 2019. During the cohort the WA State Supreme Court approved the LLLT enhancements. The teachers of the cohort had to regroup and readjust. And teach while not having all their questions answered but working through it as much as they could. I completed the cohort December 2019. Covid-19 hit. Right in the middle of my efforts to try to reach the requirement of 3000 hours, trying to figure out how to take the PCCE exam, the enhancement 2 day course, and finally the Bar exam all things on pause during shelter in place order. All to find out that they want to sunset the “program”. I am disappointed, angry, and sick! All the sacrifices my children made, I made, the hours, the tears, and ALL the money because you could not get financial aid or grants. People who chose this path chose it because it is something they believe in. I chose the LLLT path 1) because I believe knowledge is power 2) I believe everyone should have a voice 3) I believe everyone should have access to justice 4) I wanted to offer my assistance in giving everyone that voice, that power, and that access. Sunsetting the “program” as they call it is taking away from the already disadvantaged. 1 Public comments in opposition to sunsetting of LLLT license 24 of 135 I was once in that situation, and I got bullied by the “government” to which I was just a file. A file that they wanted to close. I had no knowledge, no voice, no access. They did not necessarily care about my needs or the needs of my child/children. We were just a file, a number. I believe in what this license represents, that is what it is a LICENSE! Not a program! I will continue to strive to achieve to finish what I started! No it won’t be easy! But as you can see when was it? Thank you! Angela Guadamuz Sent from my iPhone 2 Public comments in opposition to sunsetting of LLLT license 25 of 135 Dawson, Seth From: OFFICE RECEPTIONIST, CLERK Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2020 4:01 PM To: Carlson, Susan; Lennon, Erin Subject: FW: LLLT From: Lena Robel [mailto: ] Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2020 2:53 PM To: OFFICE RECEPTIONIST, CLERK Hello, I am currently a paralegal student at Spokane Community College, and I am taking the core classes to take the LLLT curriculum. I am absolutely shocked you would want to end a program that is going to provide so much good for the underprivileged communities. The majority of people can not afford an attorney. Family law matters are extremely important, if not the most important area of law for the average person. Recently it was found 80% of family law matters are pro se. There are tons of people interested in this program, and there will always be a demand in the legal field. There will also always be a large population that can not afford legal help. Please reconsider your decision to sunset the LLLT program. Thank you, Lena 1 Public comments in opposition to sunsetting of LLLT license 26 of 135 Dawson, Seth From: OFFICE RECEPTIONIST, CLERK Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2020 4:03 PM To: Carlson, Susan; Lennon, Erin Subject: FW: LLLT Program Attachments: Justice Montoya-Lewis.JPG; Justice Yu.JPG From: Michael Begley [ ] Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2020 3:04 PM To: OFFICE RECEPTIONIST, CLERK Dear Justices, My name is Michael Begley. For the past three quarters, I've been at Spokane Community College working on getting my A.A.S. in Paralegal Studies and focusing on completing the curriculum for the LLLT. I've maintained a 3.97 GPA and taken, on average, 23 credits per quarter so I can complete that part of the licensure process as quickly as possible. I still have two legal classes (Contracts and Legal Research & Writing, as well as 150 hours of internship to complete before I can move to the next step. I found out a few days ago that I've wasted the last year. I don't need to work, I'm a former Full-Time Microsoft employee, I'm 47 and was working only out of boredom. My Mother was a Family Law Attorney in Seattle. I helped her study when she went to law school and took the Bar Exam. I decided last year to become a LLLT so I could offer low-cost legal services to folks with poor and moderate-income. This program has been around for about eight years, I heard about it from a friend who is an attorney. It wasn't through advertising, obviously, since nobody bothered to advertise it extensively (I would have done this several years ago). I mean no disrespect, but your decision to sunset the program is yet another blow to the poor in this county, who often can't afford a $250-300/hr attorney. They appear pro se and get lambasted in court because they have no advocate. This will, of course, affect people of color disproportionately. Why do you think people are protesting right now? They are protesting because they lack the legal resources to be fairly represented in the courts. Something that you, the Washington State Supreme Court, wrote a letter about recently. This is, frankly, a tragedy. I can continue, and possibly get my law degree (in about six years). I'll be fine. Why? Because I have resources. Many people don't. These people need advocates. It is sad that the Washington State Supreme Court has decided that they aren't worth some advertising and a few extra dollars. Suffice it to say, I am truly disappointed. You should probably just throw away the letter you wrote in support of people of color, it rings disturbingly hollow. Last year Justices Yu and Montoya-Lewis came to Spokane to meet with community leaders to advocate for disenfranchised minorities. It was, at the time, an honor to meet them (see the attached pictures). Now I'm not sure why they bothered. 1 Public comments in opposition to sunsetting of LLLT license 27 of 135 I respectfully request that you reconsider this decision and expand the program (advertise it as well) to cover Landlord-Tenant, Consumer Debt and Elder Law (especially now that the poor and moderate-income may be facing eviction, bankruptcy and seniors will have family members potentially robbing them, given the current economic situation). Be advocates for justice, it shouldn't only be accessible to wealthy white people. Thank you, Michael Begley 2 Public comments in opposition to sunsetting of LLLT license 28 of 135 Dawson, Seth From: OFFICE RECEPTIONIST, CLERK Sent: Friday, June 12, 2020 4:06 PM To: Carlson, Susan Subject: FW: The LLLT program This looks like it went to two Justices. From: Olivia Schroder [mailto: ] Sent: Friday, June 12, 2020 4:03 PM To: Stephens, Justice Debra L. Dear Chief Justice Stephens and The Supreme Court, I am currently a student at Whatcom Community College pursuing an LLLT license. I was very disappointed to hear about the Supreme Court's decision last week to terminate the program and am still in shock, trying to wrap my head around what just happened to my goals and future plans. I am extremely frustrated by the Supreme Court's arbitrary deadline of July 31st, 2021. All I have left to do before I can take the licensing exam is complete three Family Law classes (the practice area curriculum). I can complete those classes by June, 2021, which would allow me to take the exam being offered on July 26th - 5 days before your deadline. Will 5 days be enough time to get my score back, apply for a license, and be issued that license? No one can tell me but it seems unlikely. Without some assurance that I will at least get one shot to earn my license, I can't justify continuing to spend thousands of dollars and hundreds of hours working on it. Everything I have done so far will have been for nothing. Please allow those of us in the pipeline more time to finish what we're doing. We entered this program with a good faith belief that the work, time, and money we put into it would result in something tangible. It is unjust and unfair to make us all throw away our investments. Sincerely, Olivia Schroder 1 Public comments in opposition to sunsetting of LLLT license 29 of 135 Dawson, Seth From: OFFICE RECEPTIONIST, CLERK Sent: Monday, June 15, 2020 9:40 AM To: Carlson, Susan; Lennon, Erin Subject: FW: LLLT Program decision From: Laura Mclean [mailto: Sent: Saturday, June 13, 2020 3:19 PM To: OFFICE RECEPTIONIST, CLERK Hello: I am writing regarding the recent decision to "sunset" the LLLT program. I was quite distressed that review of the program, for the purpose of considering whether it is viable or not, was not widely published. In addition to the Bar Association and the Court, each participating college and their students should be considered and heard. As a student, working towards the Paralegal degree at a WSBA approved college, with the intent to become a Limited License Legal Technician, this news was startling and unwelcome, to say the least. We have two students in my household; me and my daughter. We both work two jobs to attend school. When there was not enough for both of our courses and books, the funds were allocated to my daughter. This has delayed my completion of the Paralegal degree. I have an opportunity, through my employer, to obtain a Paralegal degree that is not WSBA approved. I chose to attend Highline College specifically for the flexibility to later enroll in the LLLT program. I share this with you to demonstrate I am one of many students "in the pipes", who have very little chance of completing a cohort and exams within 12 months. The LLLT classes were not offered last year through the University of Washingron, whose program had been offered as "continuing education", which meant no grants or student loans covered the courses. Those students who have attended in the past did so relying on savings or credit, increasing their consumer debt. This year the cohort program was restructured to allow for financial aid, as I understand it. Since the program has been restructured to be more accessible, I must wonder why the Court would cite low completion rates as one of the deciding factors when it is highly probable attendance will spike, as a result of those changes. The program is not popular amongst attorneys in this state. But the proportions of the population that would be able to obtain their legal services are not who would benefit from the services of a Practitioner. The attorneys will lose very little business, if any and an entirely underserved and under represented segment of the population stands to benefit. 1 Public comments in opposition to sunsetting of LLLT license 30 of 135 At this time, when the world is demanding social justice, dismantling a program that was developed to serve people who cannot afford an attorney seems illogical. One might look upon this decision as protecting the Goliaths while taking the stone away from David. It is my hope that you will reconsider the "sunsetting" of this program and either take a wait and see approach (as the program has become financially more accessible) or consider a biannual offering of the cohort. The second alternative still contributes towards reduction of costs to the State during these unprecedented times, and also displays a willingness to allow for more equitable access to much needed services. Kindly, Laura McLean Paralegal Student Highline College Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android 2 Public comments in opposition to sunsetting of LLLT license 31 of 135 Dawson, Seth From: OFFICE RECEPTIONIST, CLERK Sent: Monday, June 15, 2020 8:52 AM To: Carlson, Susan Subject: Fw: Sunsetting the LLLT License From: STACY DAVIS < > Sent: Saturday, June 13, 2020 8:45 PM To: OFFICE RECEPTIONIST, CLERK Subject: Sunsetting the LLLT License Dear Chief Justice Stephens, My name is Stacy Davis and I am a LLLT student enrolled in the Family Law 1 practice area curriculum at WCC. I have a LLLT Preparation Certificate but due to kinks in the system, I will not be able to complete my exams or my 3000 hours by the July 31, 2021. I am also a LLLT Public Board member. I am very saddened by the sundowning of our program. Being a LLLT student myself, I was hoping to work on increasing the students through our pipeline. I would ask that the Court to consider increasing the deadline to July 31, 2023 for those students that have put in so much energy, time and money in the hope to increasing access to justice for all. Thank you for your consideration. Respectfully, Stacy Davis LLLT Public Board Member 1 Public comments in opposition to sunsetting of LLLT license 32 of 135 Dawson, Seth From: OFFICE RECEPTIONIST, CLERK Sent: Wednesday, June 17, 2020 10:23 AM To: Carlson, Susan; Lennon, Erin Subject: FW: Supreme Courts decision to sunset the LLLT Program. From: Charity Rotinski [mailto: ] Sent: Wednesday, June 17, 2020 10:14 AM To: OFFICE RECEPTIONIST, CLERK Dear Supreme Court Justices, I am writing to express my concerns about your recent decision to “sunset” the Limited License Legal Technician program. In 2018 I became a student at Spokane Community College, I have just completed my second year and I am in the LLLT core classes. When I started at the college, I knew that LLLT was the only career for me. I knew firsthand how hard it is to find low cost legal aid, I couldn’t wait to create a life where I could do something about the need for low cost or free legal help. I plan on attending Whatcom in the fall of 2020 in order to complete the Family Law classes to get my LLLT certificate. I hope to continue with my educational and career goals of becoming a LLLT. There are a lot of us that are working hard in order to make a difference, please don’t stop what so many people have worked so hard to achieve. Let us bridge a gap As a student who is very interested in having a career in law, I have made the decision to become a LLLT. This decision also means that I have decided to take less pay than a traditional lawyer, while also creating less debt and less time in order to complete my education and start my career. Along with these choices I look forward to helping the people that need this access legal aid the most. The low income and the ones that struggle to help themselves need access that is more affordable. Many LLLT’s volunteer their time to help in programs that are developed for the people with the lowest income in our communities. I for one look forward to giving my time for many years to come, this is one of the reasons I chose this career path. This program was started to provide legal aid to people that cannot easily access or afford other options, let those of us that have stepped forward continue to bridge a gap between the classes. Let us continue our education so we can help lessen the burden on the court systems and help those that need it. Allow us more time. 1 Public comments in opposition to sunsetting of LLLT license 33 of 135 It took approximately ten years for the nurse practitioner career to become well known and begin to thrive, why should the LLLT program be expected to take less time? There has been so little public education about the LLLT program and so little time to let it grow and develop that a decision should not be made that would affect so many. I am a student that can finish most of my requirements by the July 31, 2021 deadline, however I cannot complete my required 3000 hours of work experience. I know I am not the only one that will struggle to meet the work experience time frame, especially with the limited intern and job options due to Covid 19. I’m asking you to re-consider the need for more time. There are approximately 250 students at different phases of their education that are trying to achieve the goal of becoming LLLT certified, not all of them can meet the timeline given under the best circumstances. Please extend the deadline to give those of us that have invested money and time a chance to achieve this amazing goal. Please consider allowing the LLLT program to continue; give us time to gain public awareness as more of us are given the chance to do the work we are gaining an education for. Give us time to achieve the goals that we are already working so hard for? Respectfully, Charity Rotinski Student, Spokane Community College 2 Public comments in opposition to sunsetting of LLLT license 34 of 135 Dawson, Seth From: Cynthia Silva < > Sent: Wednesday, June 17, 2020 8:30 AM To: Carlson, Susan Subject: Termination of the LLLT Program Dear Susan Carlson, I started working for Kmart when I was 17 years old. I worked my way up through the company, which eventually merged with Sears. The last 13 years I worked out of the corporate office as a project manager for new and remodel stores. As I’m sure you know Sears has been struggling for several years now. Knowing that my job could be eliminated at any time, I began looking into what the rest of my working career would look like if or when that happened. I was intrigued by the new LLLT program and decided that I would pursue it when the time came. Two years ago, the company let all the project managers go during a reduction in workforce and I lost my job of 36 years. Within two weeks I had contacted Whatcom Community College and was working with the worker re-training counselor to plan my new future as a LLLT. I have spent the last two years taking full-time courses to get my associates degree in paralegal studies and have two classes left to complete this summer. I worked hard toward that goal and have a 3.92 GPA. I am planning to take the 3 required LLLT classes starting this fall. I would like to ask you to reconsider sunsetting this program. I have spent the last two years working toward this career, and two years of my available financial aid is invested in this program. I would also ask that you consider changing the required hours from 3000 to 1500. That would help many us who want to be LLLTs to achieve that goal earlier, which in turn would begin to generate the licensing fees needed to make the program pay for itself. I believe LLLTs offer an affordable alternative for people who would otherwise not be able to afford representation. Many people fall through the cracks and some end up either staying in an abusive relationship or agreeing to the other party’s terms simply because they have little financial means to do otherwise. Washington was the first state to start a program like this and now more states are starting similar programs. I think it would be a shame for Washington to abandon a program that gives more people access to legal help. Thank you for your consideration, Cynthia Silva 1 Public comments in opposition to sunsetting of LLLT license 35 of 135 Dawson, Seth From: OFFICE RECEPTIONIST, CLERK Sent: Thursday, June 18, 2020 9:18 AM To: Carlson, Susan; Lennon, Erin Subject: FW: Sunset of LLLT program From: Sherri Donley [mailto: ] Sent: Thursday, June 18, 2020 9:12 AM To: OFFICE RECEPTIONIST, CLERK Good morning, I am Sherri Donley. I am a future LLLT in the pipeline to obtain my license by February 2021. In recent weeks I have learned about the sunset of the LLLT practice as of July 2021. This is very upsetting and a blow to the legal community and, especially me. I currently hold an AAS in paralegal studies obtained in 2017 from SPSCC. This school was not qualified under WSBA to an accredited school (I found out 2 quarters from graduation). After graduation I attended TCC in the Pro Cert program (1 yr.) just to have the credits to enter the UW LLLT program. I spent a total of 4+ years and worked/working full time with a family to get the hours and credits to fulfill a dream that I hope to have. I currently for the past 11 years, have worked as a legal advocate in two different DV/SA agencies. The reason I wanted to get the LLLT license was the cost was affordable and the ability to help those I was and am already helping, except I would be able to give advice and support them better. I currently work with the low income and underserved community in Lewis County. In that county there is not a court facilitator nor a legal aid. The area is rural, and it creates barriers for those in need of the legal system who otherwise would not be able to be represented or supported adequately. I currently along with my regular job, aid an attorney for hours needed (700 hr.’s short of 3000). The legal system needs LLLT to help support the growing number of legal challenges in the family law arena. LLLT’s are supportive of the mainstream legal community and need/want to partner with them, not fight them, steal their work or degrade them. We need our attorney’s and their staff to support the needs of the communities we serve. I am urging you to listen and understand what the impact of the sunset will have in our communities. I urge you to reverse the decision. The community of LLLT’s felt unheard and frankly terribly upset that our voices were not part of this topic/decision. I understand that the cost was a factor, however the cost I believe was not the issue. The idea that LLLT are evolving in the field may have felt threatening to some of the legal community and that simply is not the case. I want to thank you for considering this letter as one voice of many LLLT and future LLLT. The program and service are amazing, and I am sad at the possibility of it ending for good. Best regards, 1 Public comments in opposition to sunsetting of LLLT license 36 of 135 Sherri Donley Future LLLT 2 Public comments in opposition to sunsetting of LLLT license 37 of 135 Stacy Davis mice. JUN 2 9 2020 Washington State Supreme Court 6/22/2020 My name is Stacy Davis and I am a LLLT student. I was a dental hygienist for 33 years until I was forced to retire due to head and neck pain. In the local Wenatchee paper, I read an article on the LLLT career pathway. I was so excited and thrilled that with my AA degree, I could take 45 credits of Core Education, Family Law Practice Area courses online at night, pass the PCCE and Practice Area Exams, 3000 hours of substantive work experience, and become a LLL T. Since Wenatchee does not offer paralegal courses, I enrolled at Spokane Community College and rented an apartment and commuted home on the weekends. It was difficult obtaining any substantive work experience during this time due to travel. When I finally did, I had two attorneys who later, were uncomfortable signing off on my hours and another attorney sent me home due to Covid. I have completed the Core Education (President's List) and finished Family Law I (93%). With the sun-downing of the program for obtaining a LLLT license by July 31, 2021, it now becomes impossible for me complete all my requirements: 1. I wasn't able to take the PCCE exam after my Core Education because I needed 1 year of substantive work experience, which I still do not have. 2. I have to take the PCCE before I can take the Family Law Practice Area Exams. 3. I would have finished the Family Law Classes in December 2020 but I would have to wait to take those exams until I get a year of substantive experience to take the PCCE. Due to the exams being delayed, I would have to restudy for all courses and exams extensively. 4. The Family Law classes were offered 2 quarters later than originally designed. 5. I have a permanent partial disability that prevents me from working full time and Covid has delayed any employment opportunities. As you can see, the pathways are very convoluted and complicated. I have served on the LLLT Board since Sept/Oct 2019 and have brought these matters up several times to the board. I am now 58 years old and have spent 2 years pursuing a license that was touted as a degree you could complete in two years if you already had your AA in any subject. I have invested extraordinary time, money, and effort and for what? This was my "do over''. I am disappointed in the program and the many kinks in the system. Public comments in opposition to sunsetting of LLLT license 38 of 135 I think one way that hundreds of student in the pipeline will have any way of completing the program would be to: 1) To eliminate the PCCE which requires a year of experience to take. We have already passed our Core Education. 2) Reduce the 3000 hours to 1,500. Other states have adopted this. 3) Have 40 months after successfully passing the Practice Area Exam and Ethics exam to complete the work experience requirement, which is how its currently written. The students should not be the ones that are suffering because of the faults and poor handling of others. Please feel free to contact me. This needs to be righted. This needs to be fair. There needs to be justice. Respectfully, Stacy Davis LLLT student LLLT Board Member Public comments in opposition to sunsetting of LLLT license 39 of 135 STACYDAVIS _, tl./J- ~ c~ ~ ~ tu~ fJ-1 . ~ '1~9~7 0 ~1 W;f 7ff't?//-o1~f Public comments in opposition to sunsetting of LLLT license 98504$0929 BOOi 'I II• II 1, ,1 11lh• 111,1, 11•11I1• 11111 111 1JI •I j, 11, ill I I1 •' 11•'1'40 ,, of 135 From: OFFICE RECEPTIONIST, CLERK To: Carlson, Susan; Lennon, Erin Date: Thursday, June 25, 2020 11:01:32 AM Attachments: Wa Sup Ct Email-LLLT 6-24-2020.docx This also went to Judy, Lynda, and Justice Yu. From: Connie Major [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, June 25, 2020 10:36 AM To: OFFICE RECEPTIONIST, CLERK Please forward the attached letter to whomever you feel would have the best results and feel appropriate. I consider this my personal dissent. Thank you for your consideration. Public comments in opposition to sunsetting of LLLT license 41 of 135 [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; RE: Sunsetting of the LLLT Program To the Supreme Court and Members: I am sure you have received many letters regarding the sunsetting of the LLLT Program. This is my personal letter regarding the same. I am a resident of the State of Washington. I am emailing you today to notify you of my concern and request for action regarding the sunsetting of the LLLT Program. Cost – The program was 1% of the overall budget. More money was spent on publications and board members travel than the entire administration of this program. Rules – The Court did not have public comment or get input from stakeholders. This is not the proper access to justice the Court has been posting on social media. This is a misuse of the process of the legal system and those who trust and hold it to be the best avenue of justice. Disparate impact – this decision by the Court has a disparate impact on persons of color and those of lower income – the very ones you took an oath to help. This is not a proper or appropriate action for a tribunal of this stature to take without proper procedure. Further, using the current pandemic to implement the disintegration of a system that has been in place and gaining momentum in Washington and other states since 2012 is irresponsible. This is a service which will assist people who are disabled and of low to moderate incomes to assist the courts and judges in saving time and money while sending a message that “Legal Services” are not only the right of those with money but the right of every man, woman and child in the United States of America. By allowing this decision to stand, the disservice is to the people this program was meant to assist. I am surprised at each of the members who did not even request for a time for comments, input and further information and for review of this decision. As my Grandmother would have said, “This will reflect on you because of the actions you have made that will ripple into the future of your lives and the lives of those you care about.” I see the value that millions of Americans who would not otherwise have the ability to gain legal assistance would be able to receive from the assistance of an LLLT and accept the challenge to assist. I have completed my own documents as they related to family law for dissolution, paternity, custody, and modification of child support, just to name a few. I have completed documents for family law firms I have worked for since 2001. I have felt the pain of loss when this assistance was not enough to achieve their goal but the resilience to continue to follow the process for future clients. Public comments in opposition to sunsetting of LLLT license 42 of 135 I am currently completing my paralegal certificate to assist me in obtaining a higher paying position within the legal field. When I was told about this program and the amount of assistance it would provide to those who wouldn’t otherwise have that opportunity, I was excited and began that important part of this journey. I believe that it is an important avenue to assist people and began building my education/career path in the area of LLLT. I have put myself on a course of obtaining the required credits to transfer to UW for the Family Law portion of this certificate. I have been in the Paralegal program at Edmonds College since July 2019 and will complete this August 2020. It was my intention to complete the program at UW, while working either through a legal office or my business or a combination of the two. If Whatcom College will be the only one offering the Family Law portion, I have already scheduled an appointment for registration. I am a 58-year old woman, who has achieved the honor of being Phi Theta Kappa because of receiving a very high grade point average (mostly A’s) during my paralegal course work at Edmonds. This education and previous skills I have earned working with attorneys and their confidence in my abilities, makes me passionate about pursuing this certificate. This was the journey I chose of becoming someone in the community who would be respected for my ethics, my assistance and my spunk to do what others either would not have time or availability to assist by becoming an LLLT. I believe I will still be able to accomplish the tasks required to become an LLLT by the July 2021 deadline. The ability help people has been a dream of mine for as long as I can remember, but my love of the law and legal system and the respect of the legal community is more than just a dream. It is something I have been living for over 20 years. Being able to assist people that would not even consider making a call to an attorney because they “know they can’t afford an attorney” would be an honor for me. I have come from humble beginnings and have waited a long time to accomplish this goal. I’m sure there are many others that feel the same way. Please, don’t take this dream and the assistance I would be able to give you ALL away from me and the many others still in the educational and testing area of this program. I ask that you reconsider this decision, or I ask that you contact the court and ask that they reconsider this decision. There is more to this process than has been accomplished and it should be made right by the Court, in its entirety! Thank you for your time and consideration. Respectfully, Connie Major, Owner Anything’s Possible Typing & Mobile Notary Service Contact: (425) 417-1852 [email protected] https://anythingspossiblemobilenotary.com Always At Your Service! Public comments in opposition to sunsetting of LLLT license 43 of 135 From: OFFICE RECEPTIONIST, CLERK To: Carlson, Susan; Lennon, Erin Subject: FW: Letter regarding the LLLT program Date: Thursday, June 25, 2020 12:18:50 PM Attachments: Justice letter.docx From: Tina Palazza [mailto: ] Sent: Thursday, June 25, 2020 11:59 AM To: OFFICE RECEPTIONIST, CLERK To Whom it May Concern: I am attaching a letter in hopes that my personal experience will be considered regarding the recent decision to sunset the LLLT program. It is my hope that the timeline for completion of the program will be extended once the court has determined that people have invested a great deal of time and money into pursuing this license, and that it would be unjust to suddenly and significantly reduce the time frame allotted by APR 28 to complete the program. I appreciate the opportunity to share my experience and thoughts with the Court. Respectfully, Tina Palazza LLLT Candidate Public comments in opposition to sunsetting of LLLT license 44 of 135 Tina Palazza LLLT Candidate June 25, 2020 Re: Sunsetting the LLLT Program Dear Chief Justice Stephens, During 17 years of a marriage to a coercively controlling man, who earned a high income, I had no access to our financial records, which meant that when I finally found the courage to file for a divorce, I had no money for an attorney; but he did. In my experience, family law attorneys are not likely to help with dissolutions, nor modifications, without retainers of thousands of dollars; which means that people in households of low to moderate means, cannot afford the services of an attorney. Additionally without access to attorneys, are the people, often women, in abusive relationships, that have limited access to justice, because of the controlling nature of their relationships. A common misunderstanding about abusive relationships is that abuse needs to be physical and unfortunately, our statutes only address physical violence. However, victims of domestic abuse are terrorized in ways that are difficult to recognize or address, which makes it difficult for a victim to leave. Non-assaultive abuse is a form of domestic violence that insidiously establishes control over time and can be quite subtle. Financial abuse is one of the ways an abuser can control their victims. Pathological behaviors often manifest around finances and personality disordered people are often responsible for domestic, and often grand scale corporate fraud. In a domestic situation, a victim may be unable to leave, and once a victim is isolated, it doesn’t matter if they are leaving a 5 bedroom house on the east side, or a 1 bedroom in a low income area, they are essentially both left without access and means to survival. I so naively believed that if I were transparent and honest, the laws would protect me, but I was so wrong. Justice and liberty are not just handed over, they do not constitutionally rise out of our entitlement to protection, they are only protected if you have the financial means to do so. I had no financial resources, as my ex-husband of 17 years did, so I ended up being pro se through mediation, binding arbitration, and several contempt and enforcement motions that were mere attempts to protect myself from the sabotage that my ex-husband attempted to throw my way. During that arduous and daunting process, I threw my hands in the air and exclaimed to a friend, who happened to be a family law attorney, that I was “going to law school!”. This friend vehemently tried to warn me against law school, and said that I should pursue the paralegal certificate program, as he did, Public comments in opposition to sunsetting of LLLT license 45 of 135 before I commit to law school. It was there I began to understand and appreciate the law in a way I hadn’t before. While becoming quite enthusiastic about legal research and writing, I discovered the LLLT program. I had recently come out of a program through the Washington State Arts Commission where I learned how to teach marginalized kids art, and teach social justice to the ones who were not. It was incredible and has enabled me to have meaningful conversations with my own children that are so relevant right now, in a way that I would not have been able to before. In 2018, I zipped through the paralegal program, taking 62 credits in 4 quarters so that I could be ready in the fall for the LLLT program. In the fall of 2019, I was informed that the program wasn’t going to start in the fall, that it was likely due to low enrollment, and would begin in the winter. It didn’t and I was getting the runaround. I discovered that the UW School of Law was no longer going to host the program (alarming), and that they were shopping for new schools. I decided to pivot and started preparing to apply to UW for an MSW so I could continue to be an agent of change in the realm of social justice and reform. Soon after, I received notice that the LLLT program was ready to start and I was on my way, or so I thought. If I tell you that every hurdle in my entire life all added up were nothing compared to how difficult the three years post my divorce were, it would not be hyperbolic. I have worked so hard and so much, and was relying on a fixed period of spousal support to do so in a finite amount of time so that I could have a meaningful career in order to create stability and independence to provide a good life for my children. I planned my life, my new career path and my schedule all according to the schedules and requirements of the LLLT program. And if it had not been not poorly managed, and I had known the possibility of extinction were real (I was assured it wasn’t), I would have pursued and could have possibly finished law school or an MSW by now, and certainly before I met the requirements for a LLLT. Alas, just this week I was given notice that the program has been sunset by the Supreme Court of Washington and that the window of opportunity to meet the requirements according to APR 28, no longer existed according to that rule. Needless to say, it was a very devastating personal loss. But so much more than the personal loss is the loss to our community. If ever there were a time for it to be relevant, that time is now. Access to justice is a real issue. It is the foundation for the massive global dialogue about the inequities we are facing in our judicial system right now. This program was not an effort to undermine the work of attorneys or to take money out of their pockets, it was to provide legal representation for people who may otherwise have no opportunity to find resolution in their pursuits of equitable relief. I truly want to be an advocate for those people during this incredibly vulnerable time. I have discovered that the courts are perpetuating the abuse cycle and are lacking the knowledge and the resources to accommodate and support people in this cycle. The basic lack of public awareness of what domestic abuse looks like is minimized and dismissed, leaving people stuck in these relationships with few places to turn when they do leave, particularly if they are lacking financial resources. Even well- meaning and empathetic practitioners are limited in their efforts to help. Without Limited Licensed Legal Technicians, fewer people will be able to find legal support that they can afford to help them navigate one of the most difficult journeys of their lives. Not to mention, the legal system benefits from having fewer pro se petitioners and respondents navigating a complex and intimidating legal process. Particularly now when our courts are overwhelmed with petitioners seeking justice. Public comments in opposition to sunsetting of LLLT license 46 of 135 As it stands, the last two to three years of my life, not to mention the financial cost, and quality of life cost for my children and myself, have essentially been wasted on a program that I profoundly believed in pursuing in order to advocate for justice. I strongly believe that this this program should not be sunset, it should be expanded into additional practice areas to help people with housing and education issues. However, if it is eliminated, I should be afforded the opportunity to complete the process in the time allotted by APR 28 and nothing less. I have only just finished Family Law I, and I cannot possibly complete the requirements in the impossibly short amount of time given to those already in the pipeline. It seems particularly impossible when we consider the global COVID pandemic that has greatly impacted our ability to accumulate 3000 hours of substantive work hours at a time when work hours are being reduced. I humbly ask that you reconsider extending the timeline for those in the pipeline to complete the LLLT program in a reasonable time frame, so that all of the time and effort expended will not have been in vain. Sincerely, Tina Palazza Public comments in opposition to sunsetting of LLLT license 47 of 135 From: OFFICE RECEPTIONIST, CLERK To: Carlson, Susan; Lennon, Erin Subject: FW: comment on ending of LLLT program? Date: Friday, June 26, 2020 12:07:38 PM From: Angela Wright [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Friday, June 26, 2020 12:06 PM To: Stanzione, Melissa Melissa, Thank you for reaching out with your questions about the LLLT license and the vote to end it. I am the third licensed LLLT in WA, LLLT 103. I am 65, and I had planned to supplement my retirement income by working as an LLLT. I liked the idea of using my past work experience and knowledge to help those in my community in need of family law legal assistance that could not afford an attorney. Background and Comments Regarding License Requirements and Costs In 2002, I earned an ABA (American Bar Association) approved ATA paralegal degree at Edmonds Community College and immediately went to work full time for a solo family law attorney. The coursework for the paralegal degree was surprisingly intense and challenging and taught by highly regarded law professors. I truly valued my degree. In 2013, when the LLLT educational requirements were announced, it was surprising to me that in order to sit for the LLLT Exam I was required to take additional "core" coursework to add to my paralegal degree. These courses were unavailable at the time. The alternative was to pass testing offered by non-ABA accredited paralegal professional organizations, either NALA (National Association of Legal Assistants) or NFPA (National Federation of Paralegals Association). I took and passed the Paralegal Advanced Competency Exam offered by NFPA. The testing involved basic questions regarding mainly federal law. I was only able to study minimally at the time but passed. This created additional expense and effort for me. It is still unclear to me why passing a test offered by a paralegal professional organization, which is not accredited educationally, would be considered equal to possessing an ABA approved paralegal degree but jumping this hoop allowed me take the UW Law School family law coursework and sit for the exam. There were many other hoops to be jumped but I was in the first group to sit for the exam and get licensed so I chalked the things like the requirement for an FBI background check ( not required of attorneys) and having to argue with the WSBA about the validity of the malpractice insurance I obtained, as part of the learning curve. Public comments in opposition to sunsetting of LLLT license 48 of 135 In 2013, I had accrued well more than the 3,000 hours of substantive legal work experience required, so passing the paralegal professional association testing and taking the UW family law course work were the things that I needed to complete to sit for the exam. Neither of these requirements were eligible for educational financial aid as was the paralegal degree that I had earned. So as a single income household, I put these expenses on my credit card. Those expenses in themselves were not prohibitive (recollecting about approximately 5,000), but they were more than what I could afford out of pocket while working as a legal assistant. However, the costs of the LLLT testing, the malpractice insurance, annual licensing, and continued educational requirements are prohibitive to my ability to offer lower cost legal assistance and keep a business afloat as an independent LLLT in a rural location. I have drawn from my retirement savings and income as a Title 25 GAL (Guardian ad Litem in family law matters) to stay in business. I know others, mostly in urban locations that have been much more successful. This does cause me to question whether becoming an LLLT is a good path for a young person as there are no financial aid resources for the LLLT courses. LLLTs remain basically unknown to the general public, the judiciary, and even to social service organizations that might find LLLTs a lower cost resource than attorneys for assisting their clients. But the hardest professional issue to overcome is the tremendous push back from the traditional legal community itself. However these same challenges have been associated with many other occupations aimed at helping to provide professional services at a lower cost to those in need. As an example, Physicians Assistants faced many of these same issues initially, but are now prevalent and needed professionals in the medical community. Response to Sunsetting Vote by the Supreme Court The court's decision to sunset the LLLT license is just another blatant slap in the face from those that never wanted the program to succeed in the first place. The vote to end the license as if it were a mere financial decision, came during concerns over a pandemic and racial injustice (let's do this while nobody is looking). I believe the WA Supreme Court's action to end a license that was created as an effort to aid the many that cannot afford the assistance of a lawyer, in something as basic and necessary as family law, is unethical, immoral and, dare I say it? - racist (persons of color represent a higher percentage of those with no access to justice). It is simply obscene that the court took the action to end the license with no public notice or comment period provided to stakeholders or to the general public. It was basically a backroom deal with the WSBA, an organization of well paid attorneys, that for the most part, has resisted the LLLT license since its inception. The vote to end the license will require changes to court rules which are governed by court rule GR9, which requires notice and comment periods, but the court side stepped this in its vote to just end the license. Justice Madsen's dissent letter on the vote details much of the above. Public comments in opposition to sunsetting of LLLT license 49 of 135 Considering that the LLLT board is run by a volunteer effort, and funding has been limited to almost nothing to promote the license, a mere four plus years is way too soon for the license to be judged as ineffective. It remains basically invisible to the many that could benefit from the services of an LLLT. There is no financial aid for those that want to become an LLLT and there are no grants to social services or the judiciary for implementing the services of an LLLT. These are things that many outstanding individual LLLTs have attempted to address on their own time along with countless hours of unpaid legal assistance to those in need. I have never seen a more dedicated group of professionals than LLLTs and the LLLT Board. Yet these are the very people the court voted against. It is absolutely foolhardy to waste the time and energy that has been put forth to establish the LLLT license. It is just beginning. The right thing to do is to take that effort and transform it into something successful. The citizens of Washington deserve better from their highest court. In short, this vote to end the license is mere protectionism of the status quo by the WSBA with the aid of the WA Supreme Court playing outside the rules of justice that it is charged to uphold. Shame on them all. Melissa, thank you again for your interest in my opinion on this matter. It's too bad the Washington Supreme Court didn't request any feedback before ending the license. But that would have been just too messy and time consuming for such important people. I am more than disappointed, I am ashamed. Kind Regards, Angela Wright Angela Wright, Legal Technician Services, PLLC Angela Wright, LLLT WSBA #103LLLT P.O. Box 81 Granite Falls, WA 98252 425-350.7908 www.angieslegaltech.com [email protected] Limited License Legal Technicians (LLLT), are experienced legal professionals, trained and licensed to advise and assist individuals in family-law matters defined by APR 28 in the State of Washington. An LLLT is not an attorney. This e-mail message is intended only for the named recipient(s) above and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. Sections 2510-2521. This e-mail is confidential and may contain information that is privileged, or exempt from disclosure under applicable law. Recipients should not file copies of this e-mail with publicly accessible records. If you have received this message in error, please immediately notify the sender by return e-mail and delete this e-mail and any attachments from your computer. Thank you On Mon, Jun 22, 2020 at 11:20 AM Stanzione, Melissa Hi Angela, I’ve been following the Washington Supreme Court’s decision to “sunset” the LLLT program, and I intend to now write a human interest story. Public comments in opposition to sunsetting of LLLT license 50 of 135 I was hoping that you could provide some comments for the story—do you think the program requirements were onerous? How long did it take you to do it? Did you have to take on a lot of debt to do it? What do you think of the decision to end it? Thank you! Best, Melissa >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Melissa Heelan Stanzione Legal Reporter Bloomberg Law Direct 703.341.3768 Cell 202-655-9003 [email protected] Public comments in opposition to sunsetting of LLLT license 51 of 135 From: OFFICE RECEPTIONIST, CLERK To: Carlson, Susan; Lennon, Erin Subject: FW: Sunset of the LLLT program Date: Monday, June 29, 2020 8:34:01 AM From: Carol Peterson-Young [mailto: ] Sent: Monday, June 29, 2020 8:28 AM To: OFFICE RECEPTIONIST, CLERK Access to justice is so important in our communities, please don't cancel this lllt program. Seattle is one of the most expensive cities in the nation to live in and LLLTs are more important than ever. I've been poor and not had access to justice because I couldn't afford it and didn't understand what my legal options were. It's truly cruel to be in a position were you are bound by laws and you cannot possibly defend yourself in and not have a chance to receive justice because you lack money. Stress, anxiety, depression and despair are what people feel INTENSELY when they have no access to justice. We really should not allow citizens to feel this way when it is preventable and there are people like me who want to spend their lives helping others. I have requested enrollment in the University of Washington paralegal program with plans to pursue an LLLT. As an African-American I deeply understand that one reason we do not receive Justice is that were not represented in law as we could be. For a lot of African American and other minorities as well as Whites in Washington there's no way that we could afford Law School. With the cost of rent and mortgage we're already struggling. LLLTs allow us access to Justice. My personal plans are to start a non-profit to help African Americans and other minorities and lower income folks complete the University of Washington program to make a fairer more just Washington. If you cant see to do that, please allow those of us who have plans to get an LLLT the opportunity to complete the program by extending the timeline to allow all of us in the pipeline to complete this process. I am leaving my job at Boeing to pursue this accreditation, please allow me to to fulfill my dream of making the world a little more just. Thank you, Carol Peterson-Young Best regards, Carol Peterson-Young Public comments in opposition to sunsetting of LLLT license 52 of 135 From: OFFICE RECEPTIONIST, CLERK To: Carlson, Susan Subject: FW: Letter from Legal Studies Students at Highline College About LLLT Date: Monday, June 29, 2020 1:49:09 PM From: Julie van Arcken [mailto: ] Sent: Monday, June 29, 2020 1:31 PM To: Stephens, Justice Debra L. June 29, 2020 To the Supreme Court of the State of Washington: We, the undersigned, are Legal Studies students at Highline College, and we urge the Washington State Supreme Court to reverse its 6/4/20 decision to sunset the state’s Limited License Legal Technician program, intended to provide affordable, high-quality alternatives to attorney services to low- and moderate-income Washingtonians. Started in 2012 as the first of its type in the country, the LLLT program allows experienced legal professionals who are not attorneys to advise and assist people going through divorce, child custody, and other family law matters in Washington. In its March 2017 evaluation of the program, the American Bar Association and National Center for State Courts concluded that “The LLLT program offers an innovative way to extend affordable legal services to a potentially large segment of the public that cannot afford traditional lawyers. … This program should be replicated in other states to improve access to justice.” In order to scale up to meet the costs of its administration, the program was intended to quickly expand to include other areas of the law besides family law. As the ABA and NCSS concluded in their review, “The regulatory costs of the program are not yet close to breaking Public comments in opposition to sunsetting of LLLT license 53 of 135 even, but scaling up the program significantly would resolve that issue.” However, the program has never been allowed to scale. On 6/4/20, the Washington State Supreme Court rejected the LLLT Board’s request to expand LLLT practice areas to eviction law and administrative law. Instead, in its 6/5/20 letter explaining its decision, the Court stated that “after careful consideration of the overall costs of sustaining the program and the small number of interested individuals, a majority of the court determined that the LLLT program is not an effective way to meet these needs.” No other explanation was given as to why the court voted to end a license program without comments from the public, LLLT students, or the legal community. The overall number of interested individuals was small precisely because the program was never allowed to expand. Interest in the LLLT program as initially executed was limited, just as interest in law school would be limited if it exclusively prepared graduates for one specific field of law only. Many of us were waiting to see which fields the LLLT program expanded into before pursuing licensure. However, that opportunity has now been taken away from us. In ending the LLLT program, the Washington State Supreme Court has killed an opportunity not just to expand access to justice in terms of affordability of service for Washingtonians, but in terms of expanding its population of licensed legal professionals to include more people of color and more people from diverse socio-economic backgrounds. According to the Washington State Bar Association’s “Fact Sheet for Members of Racial Minorities” (2012), only 12% of its members are “racially diverse.” In contrast, here at Highline College, 77% of students are people of color. The LLLT program represented a relatively affordable opportunity for aspiring legal professionals to pursue state licensure without taking on approximately $60,000 in debt for the costs for the final two years of a local public bachelor’s program and an additional $150,000 for law school. For these reasons, we, the undersigned Highline College Legal Studies students, agree with the ABA and NCSS that Washington state should support and expand its LLLT program. The decision to end the program represents a huge step backward at a hopeful moment in time that society appears ready to move forward. We urge the Washington State Supreme Court to Public comments in opposition to sunsetting of LLLT license 54 of 135 reverse its decision to end the program, and to help close the access-to-justice gap by expanding the LLLT program, not ending it. Thank you for your consideration, Students of Legal Studies at Highline College Des Moines, Washington Julie van Arcken Shemika Phillips Marwa Al-Masri Elda Garcia Laura Goldstone Jocelyn Deans Larissa Smith Jaya Kona Samantha Snodderly Wendy Sessions Annie Tieu Cathleen N. Turner Natalie Patterson Jim Bals Tonia Heitzman Katie Pollock Burke Public comments in opposition to sunsetting of LLLT license 55 of 135 From: OFFICE RECEPTIONIST, CLERK To: Carlson, Susan; Lennon, Erin Subject: FW: Please Reconsider LLLT Program Date: Wednesday, July 1, 2020 4:51:51 PM From: Alaina Slater ] Sent: Wednesday, July 1, 2020 4:50 PM To: OFFICE RECEPTIONIST, CLERK Subject: Please Reconsider LLLT Program Please reconsider your decision to sunset the LLLT program. I started the program but withdrew until I felt the scope and practice were settled. In the second round of classes, instructors were still waiting on specific details as to scope and practice. Property division was recently added. I believe interest in the program will increase and the need for affordable legal services is dire. Adding other forms based areas of law will increase interest in the program. Please consider allowing LLLTs to provide document preparation services to both parties in a dissolution. A lot of spouses with limited resources have a shared interest in dissolving their marriage as cheaply as possible and moving forward. This interest can outweigh the benefit they might achieve paying separate attorneys to fight about details. Dissolution shouldn’t have to be an adversarial process. Thank you, Alaina Slater Litigation Paralegal Sent from AOL Mobile Mail Get the new AOL app: mail.mobile.aol.com Public comments in opposition to sunsetting of LLLT license 56 of 135 From: OFFICE RECEPTIONIST, CLERK To: Carlson, Susan Subject: FW: Washington Supreme Court Vote to Sunset the LLLT License Date: Monday, July 6, 2020 8:19:17 AM Attachments: Melinda Jackson LLLT to Supreme Court.pdf From: Melinda Jackson [mailto: ] Sent: Saturday, July 4, 2020 11:08 AM To: OFFICE RECEPTIONIST, CLERK Cc: [email protected] Subject: Re: Washington Supreme Court Vote to Sunset the LLLT License Please see attached letter regarding Court's vote to sunset the LLLT License. Thank you, Melinda Jackson LLLT Student Public comments in opposition to sunsetting of LLLT license 57 of 135 Melinda L. Jackson July 4, 2020 Justices of the Washington State Supreme Court P.O. Box 40929 Olympia, WA 98504 [email protected] Re: Washington Supreme Court Vote to Sunset the LLLT License Dear Justices: I am extremely concerned about the decision to sunset the LLLT program. I am currently in the pipeline to become a LLLT and the deadline of July 31, 2021 to complete the requirements to be licensed is wholly impossible especially with the onset of Covid-19. I find the decision to sunset the LLLT program and the deadline for those in the pipeline to be unjust. A little background about myself. I am 43 years old and a single mother of two young boys. I moved to Bellingham from Nevada in 2017 specifically to become a LLLT. I had just been through a very traumatic domestic violence experience, divorce, and custody proceedings. I was granted sole custody, my discretion for visitation, and permission to relocate to Bellingham, WA. I knew that a LLLT would be a career that I would be passionate about and that would also provide for my children as my ex is currently behind in child support by $110k plus. Becoming a LLLT would allow me to provide for my children by myself and allow me the freedom to be available to them when needed. On June 19, 2020, I graduated with honors from Whatcom Community College with my Associate in Science Paralegal Studies and Certificate Limited License Legal Technician. I have worked and continue to work extensively with Street Law for wee and LAW Advocates. I am enrolling for fall quarter for the first LLLT Family Law Course. Page 1 of2 Public comments in opposition to sunsetting of LLLT license 58 of 135 To meet the July 31, 2021 deadline, I would have to start working today at over 50 hours per week to meet the 3000 hours of substantive law-related work needed for my LLLT license. This would have to be done while also taking the LLLT Family Law Courses, studying and taking the PCC Exam, and studying and taking the LLLT Exams. I do not see how this is remotely feasible in normal times, let alone in this time of Covid- 19. This deadline is discriminatory by not allowing a reasonable amount of time for those of us with disabilities. Being held to the deadline of July 31, 2021 to complete the requirements to be licensed would have a severe negative impact on me and my children's future. While the above are my personal reasons I feel the declared deadline is unjust, I feel that sunsetting the LLLT program leaves thousands of Washingtonians without any reliable legal help. Washington has had the opportunity to set a precedent and example for the rest of the country by creating and implementing the LLLT program. In fact, inspired by our leadership other states such as Utah have begun implementing our LLLT model. Washington should be taking steps forward in providing access to legal services - by sunsetting the LLLT program, we will be taking significant steps backwards ... In closing, I ask you to reconsider sunsetting the LLLT program and in the least, please extend the deadline of July 31, 2021 to the previously allocated amount of time that the Supreme Court and WSBA created, LLLT Students subscribed to and are in process of carrying out. I appreciate your time and thank you for your consideration of my comments. }l:t1 ✓ , Melinda L. fac~·s CC: Washington State Bar Association Board of Governors, President Rajeev Majumdar [email protected] Page 2 of 2 Public comments in opposition to sunsetting of LLLT license 59 of 135 From: OFFICE RECEPTIONIST, CLERK To: Carlson, Susan Subject: FW: LLLT License Date: Monday, July 6, 2020 8:09:11 AM Attachments: Letter to Supreme Court 20200704.pdf From: Melissa Albert [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Saturday, July 4, 2020 4:56 PM To: OFFICE RECEPTIONIST, CLERK Subject: LLLT License Good Afternoon, It is my understanding that the court is meeting next week to further discuss the LLLT License. As I student in the pipeline, I am requesting that you review my attached letter. Thank you for your consideration. Melissa Albert, RP LLLT Candidate Public comments in opposition to sunsetting of LLLT license 60 of 135 Melissa B. Albert, RP • Email: [email protected] www.linkedin.com/in/melissaba/bert July 4, 2020 Justice of the Washington Supreme Court (via e111ail: [email protected].,g011 Temple of Justice PO Box 40929 Olympia, WA 98504 Re: Sunsetting of the JJJ~T License Dear Justices: I am an LIJ...T candidate in the pipeline. I am part of the 2020 cohort that just last week started Family Law 2 at Whatcom Community College. I would like to tell you who I am and how the decision to sunset the prohrram directly impacts me. I have a Bachelor's Degree in Political Science from the University of California at Northridgc that I obtained in 1994. Three years later, I earned my paralegal ccrtific:1tc from the A BA-approved prohrf:lm at the University of California Los Angeles through their extension and continuing education program. l\ly career as a litigation paralegal began in July 1997 and since then I have worked for a variety of employers, including local government, in house corporate, and large and small law firms. Five years ago, I was hired by a firm whose practice areas included estate planning, probate and trust administration, and family law. It was this position where I was able to fully appreciate how my work as a litigation paralegal directly impacted the lives of my clients and their families; prior to this, I had represented governments, big businesses, and financial intuitions. I learned of the LIJ...T license at a Washington State Paralegal Association event and knew immediately that I wanted to pursue it. Having an LLLT license would afford me the opportunity to assist individuals who need legal representation but cannot in their wildest dreams pay the hourly rates in excess of $300 an hour. The license would also provide me the ability to make choices for my life, that as a strict hourly employee I could not make for myself. The requirements for the LLLT program meant that despite my 20 years of experience, I could not apply immediately. The program where I earned my paralegal certificate program would not meet the requisite number of credit hours leaving my only option to apply with a waiver. The first step was to obtain my Registered Paralegal certification from the National rcderation of Paralegal Associations. I spent a year studying for the exam and earned my certification on June 23, 2018. I applied for and received the waiver in April 2019, in anticipation of classes starting that September. Unfortunately, classes were delayed multiple times and we did not start until April 2020. Classes for my cohort will complete in the middle of December 2020. To date, I have invested three years working towards this goal, including the time studying for and obtaining my certification and completing Family Law I. I have also invested S2,731 to date and anticipate my total costs to reach $5,000. The costs to date arc: S85 PACE Study Manual $225 PACE Exam Fee Public comments in opposition to sunsetting of LLLT license 61 of 135 S40 A pprnxlmnrc :1ssocin.tcd costs with P1\ CE (e.g. rrnnscr:ipts, notarization, nnd mailing costs). $60 F:1mily I ,aw I textbool< $2,190 Family J ,nw I :incl htmily I .:iw 11 $1.31 PCCE Studr l\l:111u:d \'(/ith rhe dci\dline imposed 111 cnnnccriun with the sunsetting of the license, my classmates 11 11d I arc now in a 111:id race to Ihe finish line. :-\ rac<: that w<: will no1 all finish. ,\ race thar has been set against u:; li11i:-d1ing. J'o ~-nm nw license by Ju]~, 31, 2021, l !\till 111.:ed HJ complcn: the fullo,ving: ~ ' • <:omplutc Family L.nv ll aml Fnmily I .aw 111 Pass the PCCI ~ I~i rnm (Core <:uniculum I (xnmin:irinn) Pass the LLLT licensing exam Pass the background check Portunarcly, its n wai,·er srudent. I bdic,·c thnt my prl·,·tow; cmploycr will sign for my hour;; \\'urkcd. Time is the issue. ,\ccor Classes fo r Family Law Il an To do all the re9uii.itc hours of reading, stud ying, preparing homework, :rnd exams, my dar are now full of nothing else. l;urtuna1dy, my j1Jb is permanently virtual eliminating the time for a commute. My tln )'S start al 6 am where I study until about 8. I wui:k a full day until 5 and rhc:n I sn1dy until I 0, except on days when I have dasses. The only difference on the weekends is that I don't wu,rk. This is my life until Febrnary; it is not healthy and not sustainable, With the July 202 1 dc:idline, I only have one :- hot to pass the P(CE and the license exnms. There hns rn be rime for· thcrn to be scored an \X'ith respect. l ::isk you rn com:idcr my telluests. First, 1 ask that you reconsider chl· plan tu sunset the license. Second, l nsk that if rou move forw:ud with sunsetting, that you extend the deadline beyond 2021. i\[~· w:tin.T JS gmitl through Oeccmbe1· 31, 2()25 (A f>R 28 Rcgul:lrion 4r;:), mny T recc.>mmcn 'l'bird, I ask that you eliminate rhc rcquiremcnr to pass the PCCE exam for those of us who have already pnsscd n certification exam. :\ PR 28 Regulation 8B stares that a core curriculwn e.,amination shall be satisfied by passing a notional certifying parnlcg:tl cx:1n1ination, it c.loc~ rnit spccific:1lly state rhc PCCE e:rnm. J\ly P \ Cl·~ certification should tnccl that ret1uirerncnt. Tiiank you for your cnnsi Public comments in opposition to sunsetting of LLLT license 62 of 135 WASHINGTON STATE BAR ASSOCIAT IO N Regulatory Services Depart ment Rachel Konkter direct tine: (206) 727-8289 Innovative licensing Analyst emnil: [email protected] April 23, 2019 Melissa Beth Albert [email protected] Re: Application for Waiver of Education Requirements as Limited License Legal Technician Dear Melissa: Your Application for Waiver of Education Requirements as a Limited License Legal Technician 1s approved. An approved limited time waiver waives only the following education requirements: 1. a minimum associate-level degree; and 2. 45 credits of core curriculum at an ABA approved law school or ABA approved paralegal program. Approval of the limited time waiver application will expire on December 31, 2025. After expiration of the approval, any subsequent application for Ileen sure must meet all of the standard requirements for licensure without waiver. See APR 28 Regulation 4E. Sincerely, Rachel Konkler Innovative licensing Analyst 1325 ,1111 Avenue I Suite 600 I Seattl~. WI\ 98101 2539 206.727.82S9 I [email protected] r~ I www.w5ba.org Public comments in opposition to sunsetting of LLLT license 63 of 135 J. Reapplication. No application for admission may be filed within a period of one year after a final decision of the Character and Fitness Committee, Board, or Supreme Court recommending against admission. REGULATION 8. EXAMINATIONS. NOTIFICATION OF RES UL TS A. Administration of Examinations. The examinations will be administered at such times and locations as the Board may designate. An applicant for initial licensure shall pass a core curriculum examination, a practice area examination, and a professional responsibility examination. An LLL T who applies for licensure in an additional practice area shall be required to take only the qualifying practice area examination in the practice area for which he or she is seeking licensure. B. Core Curriculum Examination. The core curriculum examination shall be satisfied by passing a national certifying paralegal examination as approved by the Board. C. Practice Area Examination. The practice area examination will test applicants on one specific practice area and knowledge of LLLT scope specific to the practice area. All practice area examinations shall be comprised of three parts: a multiple choice section, an essay section, and a perfonnance section. The duration, fonn, and manner of the exam shall be as prescribed by the Board. The passing standard for the practice area examination is a score of 75 percent for each section of the exam. A failing grade in one section shall result in failure of the exam, in which case grading of any remaining sections shall not be completed. D. Professional Responsibility Examination. The professional responsibility examination will test applicants on LLL T ethical duties as set forth in APR 28. the LLL T Rules of Professional Conduct. and knowledge of the LLLT scope of practice as set forth in APR 28(F) and (H). The professional responsibility examination shall be comprised of one multiple choice section. The duration, fonn, and manner of the exam shall be as prescribed by the Board. The passing standard for the professional responsibility examination is a score of 75 percent. E. Results. Each appl icanl wi II be notified of the applicant's practice area and professional responsibility examination results. An applicant who fails the practice area examination may request a copy of the essay and perfonnance sections. An applicant who passes the practice area exam will not receive a copy of the exam. An applicant may not request a copy of the professional responsibility exam. An applicant who passes the practice area examination but fails the professional responsibility examination or vice versa ma retake the failed exam at the next two administrations of the exam. The passing score shall be valid for one year from the date the Page 18 of25 Public comments in opposition to sunsetting of LLLT license 64 of 135 satisfy the curricular requirements approved by the Board and published by the Association. I. Domestic Relations. a. Prerequisites: Prior to enrolling in the domestic relations practice area courses, applicants shall complete the following core courses: Civil Procedure; Interviewing and Investigation Techniques; Introduction to Law and Legal Process; Legal Research, Writing, and Analysis; and Professional Responsibi Iity. b. Credit Requirements: Applicants shall complete live credit hours in basic domestic relations subjects and ten credit hours in advanced and Washington specific domestic relations subjects. REGULATION 4. LIMITED TIME WAIVERS A. Limited Time Waiver, Defined. For the limited lime between the date the Board begins to accept applications and December 31, 2023, the Board shall grant a waiver of the minimum associate-level degree requirement and/or the core curriculum education requirement set forth in APR 28(0)(3) if an applicant meets the requirements set forth in Regulation 4(B). The Board shall not grant waivers for applications filed after December 31, 2023. The Board shall not waive the practice area curriculum requirement. The limited time waiver application will be separate from the application process for licensure set forth in these regulations. B. Waiver Requirements and Applications. To qualify for the limited time waiver, an applicant shall pay the required fee, submit the required waiver application fonn, and provide proof, in such fonn and manner as the Board requires, that he/she has: I. Passed a Board approved national paralegal ccrtilication examination. 2. Active certification from a Board approved national paralegal certification organization; and 3. Completed IO years of substantive law-related experience supervised by a licensed lawyer within the 15 years preceding the application for the waiver. Proof of IO years of substantive-law related experience supervised by a licensed lawyer shall include the following: a. the name and bar number of the supervising lawyer(s). b. certification by the lawyer that the work experience meets the definition of substantive law-related work experience as defined in APR 28, and c. the dates of employment or service. C. Review of Limited Time Waiver Application. The Association shall review each Page 13 of25 Public comments in opposition to sunsetting of LLLT license 65 of 135 limited time waiver application to determine if the application meets the waiver requirements. Any application that does not meet the limited time waiver requirements as established by this Regulation shall be denied by the Association on administrative grounds. with a written statement of the reason(s) for denial. D. Review of Denial. An applicant whose application for waiver has been denied by the Association may request review by the Board chair. Such request shall be filed with the Association within 14 days of the date of the notification of denial. The applicant shall be provided with written notification of the chair's decision. which is not subject to review. E. Expiration of Limited Time Waiver Approval. Approval of the limited time waiver application shall expire December 31, 2025. Atler expiration of the approval, any subsequent application for licensure by the applicant shall meet all of the standard requirements for licensure without waiver. REGULATION 5. APPLICATIONS A. Fees. All applications shall be accompanied by the required examination and application fee. 8. Application for Licensure. An applicant for licensure as an LLLT shall complete and tile with the Association: I. a completed application for licensure in a form and manner described by the Board; 2. evidence in a form and manner prescribed by the Board demonstrating completion of a. at a minimum, an associate level degree, except applicants who have been approved for a limited time waiver pursuant to Regulation 4, b. the core curriculum required pursuant to Regulation 3(A), except applicants who have been approved for a limited time waiver pursuant to Regulation 4, and c. the practice area curriculum required pursuant to Regulation 3B, 3. original proof of passing the Core Curriculum Examination as required by Regulation 8; and 4. a signed and notarized Authorization, Release. and Atndavit of Applicant. C. Application for A.dditional Practice Area. An LLLT seeking licensure in an additional practice area must complete and file with the Association: Page 14 of25 Public comments in opposition to sunsetting of LLLT license 66 of 135 To the Honorable Justices of the Washington State Supreme Court, My name is Ranae York. I have been a paralegal since 2009. I am presently enrolled in the Limited License Legal Technician licensure program, with only a few courses left to complete the core requirements. I received the news on Monday, June 11, 2020, that the Court has chosen to sunset the LLLT licensure. I would like to personalize what this decision means to me, to my family, and to my community. I ask that you respectfully consider my letter as a reflection of not only my circumstances but that of so many others that find themselves in a similar predicament. As a survivor of domestic violence that I experienced over a 12-year period, I made it my mission in life to help other individuals that simply needed some support and an opportunity to reach a place where they can regain their dignity and their sense of self. I became a paralegal in 2009. In the 11 years since that time, I have gained an even deeper conviction to help my community and to serve those that need it most. From 2013-2015 I took a Director’s position at a domestic violence/sexual assault program. That time out of the paralegal field caused me to become ineligible for the LLLT education waiver for the 10-year experience requirement. This is why I now find myself in the midst of obtaining my 45 required core education credits for the LLLT licensure. I still have to take the Family Law curriculum which I have been told by the Bar that I cannot take simultaneously with my other classes. There is no way that I can complete the licensure by July of 2021. Becoming an LLLT is my goal in order to help those most in need in our society have access to desperately needed family law support. Becoming an LLLT is also my plan for retirement. I will be 50 years old next year. I have gone into debt with student loans for the first time in my life, in order to pay for my LLLT education. This license is literally my future. I had a plan, a direct line of sight for the rest of my professional life. This decision by the Court to wipe away this program will literally change the forecast of my future, that of my family and those in the community that I intend to serve. I live in Yakima, Washington. The poverty rate in Yakima County is devastating. One in five people live in poverty. That does not even take into consideration those that are barely making it living paycheck to paycheck. Those are the people that are meant to be helped by an LLLT practitioner. I would be only one of three LLLTs in Central/Eastern Washington. I need this license to help my community. I truly believe that access to justice is the reason, or should have been the reason, that this license was created. It was an innovation and a statement about how the State of Washington cares deeply for its citizens. I believe that it is our moral imperative to help those most needing support in our communities, to ensure all citizens have access to justice. The Court expressed similar sentiments in a letter dated June 4th, the same day they voted to sundown the LLLT licensure program, which was addressed to members of the Judiciary and the Legal Community regarding their stance on racial justice. I know that the Court wants to best serve the citizens of Washington State. The students of the LLLT licensure will be well-positioned to be able to fill the gap in access to services, particularly in vulnerable communities. Please allow them the ability to do just that, to complete the licensure that they feel so passionately about, that will allow them to help the members of our communities that need it the most. I am asking that the Court allow an extension for an additional 12 months for the program. Please allow those of us currently preparing for licensure that have invested so much, not only our money but precious time that we cannot recover, to complete the licensure education. Sincerely, Ranae M. York - Respectfully Submitted this 11th day of July, 2020 Public comments in opposition to sunsetting of LLLT license 67 of 135 From: OFFICE RECEPTIONIST, CLERK To: Carlson, Susan; Lennon, Erin Subject: FW: Limited License Legal Technician Completion Timeline Date: Tuesday, July 28, 2020 11:03:45 AM From: Elissa Dunsmore [mailto: ] Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2020 10:41 AM To: OFFICE RECEPTIONIST, CLERK Hello, My name is Elissa Dunsmore. I am a graduate of Western Washington University, and a current student in the Whatcom Community College Limited License Legal Technician Core Curriculum Certificate program. I am writing to implore those concerned to extend the deadlines for completion of the program. I was very disheartened to hear the Courts decision to end the program as this path, if completed, could dramatically increase the income potential for those participating in this program. Additionally, I have heard from my teachers, who are also lawyers, that there is a need for knowledgeable help, especially for people who are low income. I am lucky enough that I will be able to complete the program by July 2021, and I am not too worried about the test in terms of paying or score as I currently have a 4.0 and have had positive experiences with standardized tests. As I said though, I am lucky to have enrolled when I did. I first ask on behalf of other students who may have already registered for the program when the decision was made to extend the deadline for completion of the program and test to December 31st, 2021. Some classes are only offered specific quarters, and it really may be impossible for these people who enrolled to start Fall 2020 to complete the program in three quarters. My second request for extension of deadline is more personal, and is for the experience completion timeline. In my experience job searching a large majority of "entry level" paralegal positions "prefer" or require at least one year (many three years) of office experience. I am in the process of being Public comments in opposition to sunsetting of LLLT license 68 of 135 hired to an office position, so it is possible, but improbable that I could complete the experience deadline. This is also not taking into account personal life circumstances such as an illness in the family or "the mommy tax". I implore you to extend the experience deadline to July 31st, 2025 as this will vastly increase the chances of people like me being able to be certified. I thank you for your time and consideration on this issue. Sincerely, Elissa Dunsmore Public comments in opposition to sunsetting of LLLT license 69 of 135 From: Carlson, Susan To: Stephens, Justice Debra L. Cc: Vandervort, Judy; Dawson, Seth Subject: FW: Paralegal Student- LLLT "pipeline" (please read... please help.) Date: Monday, August 31, 2020 8:57:04 AM Good morning – I am forwarding another comment about the LLLT sunset. From: HEATHER CHRISTOPHER [mailto: ] Sent: Sunday, August 30, 2020 5:02 PM To: OFFICE RECEPTIONIST, CLERK Dear Washington State Supreme Court Justices: I am currently enrolled in Edmonds College. I am in the Paralegal program because I was proudly on the path to become an LLLT. I have worked hard to learn all I can to be the best possible LLLT. I have vested a year of my life in this program on this path for it to be demolished without warning. Furthermore, I had switched educational paths to become an LLLT. Originally, I was in the Social and Human Services program. However, through personal experience searching for an attorney for my divorce and learning in these Social and Human Services classes how widespread poverty is I made the decision that I could be of more service to society by narrowing the justice gap and becoming an LLLT. Now I can no longer do that. If I add the year of Social and Human Services classes I now have vested two years of my life to an education that I cannot use to help people. Had I known this I would have stayed in the Social and Human Services program. I ask, how can the court legally do this? This career and education path was promoted to me and now I cannot do it after devoting my life to it? I cannot start this fall for the LAST session of classes for the LLLT family law courses because I have not yet fulfilled all my prerequisites, I am missing two classes that I am taking this fall quarter and winter quarter. Therefore, I cannot fulfill the requirements within the timeframe you have set forth. I thought people “in the pipeline” were supposed to be given an opportunity to complete this? Am I not "in the pipeline" to become an LLLT? There must be others like me, that are a class or two off from being able to take the family law courses? I am without words to describe how this has derailed my life to describe how this feels would be impossible. I can only pray there is a way to salvage what I have worked towards. Sincerely, Heather Christopher Public comments in opposition to sunsetting of LLLT license 70 of 135 From: Carlson, Susan To: Stephens, Justice Debra L. Cc: Vandervort, Judy; Dawson, Seth Subject: FW: LLLT Program Date: Friday, October 16, 2020 3:52:05 PM Here is an email we received in regard to the LLLT Program. In our response to Ms. Alison indicating her comments would be forwarded to the Court, we included the recent order entered by the court. From: Lisa Alison [mailto: ] Sent: Friday, October 16, 2020 3:00 PM To: OFFICE RECEPTIONIST, CLERK External Email Warning! This email has originated from outside of the Washington State Courts Network. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender, are expecting the email, and know the content is safe. If a link sends you to a website where you are asked to validate using your Account and Password, DO NOT DO SO! Instead, report the incident. To whom it may concern, Hello, My name is Lisa Alison I am currently a student enrolled at Edmonds Community College. I am part of the Paralegal program, I am going to be earning my Associates of Technical Arts Degree by June 16th, 2022. I am writing to you in regards to the Limited License Legal Technician program, to be perfectly honest I was very concerned to find out that the program was decided to be sunsetted. When I first started the Paralegal program, it was quite disappointing to learn that as a paralegal I would not legally, or ethically, be able to provide legal advice to clients and especially not friends or family. I am sincerely hoping that I am able to meet all of the requirements before the program sunsets, I would instead try to take extra courses and attempt to earn my degree sooner, or at least meet the educational requirements needed. However, I feel pushing myself to that extent would cause my grades to suffer. Right now I am a full time student, a single mother of a five month old daughter. This is my first time attending college, at 24 years old, right now I am unsure as to whether I want to attend Law school or not. Which is why when I learned about the LLLT program I was very happy and excited, my first thought was "This is it! This is what I want to do with my life! This is how I will make a difference and help people in need!". I am hoping, praying, every single day that the Washington Supreme Court will change their mind and give me more time to reach my goal and so I can provide one of the ultimate services to my community. To be perfectly frank, I do not wish to change my career path; I do not wish to choose between being a paralegal or being a lawyer. In my eyes, that is a very difficult choice, not just for me but anyone else that has the same feelings regarding this decision that has been made. In this day and age, individuals and families everywhere are struggling to make ends meet, then their lives are made that much more difficult when they cannot afford legal Public comments in opposition to sunsetting of LLLT license 71 of 135 services. I myself recently decided to seek legal advice, and just to talk to the attorney for 30 minutes? cost me $300. I understand all of the hours of hard work that go into a case, but what I don't understand is why it can be allowed to cost so much for just receiving advice. Only 30 minutes of their time is equal to $300? Tomorrow morning, as part of an assignment for one of my courses, I am interviewing someone in the profession of which I am interested in. I chose to interview an LLLT, a very kind woman who is taking time out of her weekend (no more than 30 minutes, and not charging me for it) so that I can hear about her story and why she is passionate about the law from the viewpoint of an LLLT. Just based on these two situations I went through, if I am ever needing legal advice or services, I am always going to see a LLLT. In the future I want my daughter to have that same opportunity if she ever needs it, and her children and grandchildren. But that cannot happen unless the Washington Supreme Court changes the current decision. Please, for the sake of our future generations, I ask you to reverse the current decision. Respectfully, Lisa Alison Public comments in opposition to sunsetting of LLLT license 72 of 135 Whatcom COMMUNITY COLLEGE Limited License Legal Technician June 10, 2020 Dear Supreme Court Members: I am writing out of concern for the recent Supreme Court decision to sunset the Limited License Legal Technician (LLLT) program. The LLLT creates an educational pathway for students from diverse backgrounds to meet community need. It is disappointing that this contraction of access coincides with our current economic and social circumstances. I request that this decision be reconsidered. If the decision to suspend the LLLT is not reconsidered, I am encouraging the court to extend the licensing period to July 31, 2023 in order to meet the commitments to students in the LLLT student pipeline. The decision to not allow licensing after July 31, 2021, was made without input from the seven colleges approved to provide the core curriculum. This lack of consultation re. the deadline has resulted in a timeline that negatively impacts students. Student consumer protection and Title IV of the Higher Ed Act requires transparency by educational institutions. Students rely on career education programs offered by colleges and the expertise of advisors to make career choices and where to spend their limited financial resources, whether it be by financial aid, personal loan, personal funds, GI bills, grants, etc. For the Court’s further consideration, the State Board of Community and Technical College’s (SBCTC) default time period for sunsetting a program is a 3-year teach out. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Dr. Tonya Wagner [email protected], (206) 403-3303 Dean, Workforce Education | Whatcom Community College phone 360.383.3000 | fax 360.383.4000 | 237 West Kellogg Road, Bellingham WA 98226 | whatcom.edu Public comments in opposition to sunsetting of LLLT license 73 of 135 From: Stephens, Justice Debra L. To: SUP DL - JUSTICES Cc: SUP DL - ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANTS Subject: FW: Tacoma Community College LLLT Letter Date: Friday, June 12, 2020 10:16:06 AM Attachments: LLLT Letter 6.11.20.pdf Please see below and the attached letter. Chief Justice Debra L. Stephens Washington State Supreme Court PO Box 40929 Olympia, WA 98504 [email protected] 360-357-2050 From: Sorensen, Jennifer [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Friday, June 12, 2020 10:02 AM To: Stephens, Justice Debra L. Dear Justice Stephens, Attached is a letter from Tacoma Community College's Paralegal Program which has been offering the core curriculum for LLLT's since 2012. Last year, we were approved by the American Bar Association to offer a LLLT Preparation Certificate to allow students an additional option to obtain a stand-alone certificate with the core curriculum. The decision to sunset the LLLT program has prevented students and graduates from our program the ability to complete the licensing requirements by July 2021. We ask that the court please reconsider and extend this deadline to allow students who have already started the process the ability to finish. Thank you, Jennifer Sorensen Program Chair Public comments in opposition to sunsetting of LLLT license 74 of 135 TACOMA COMMUNITY COLLEGE June 11, 2020 Chief Justice Debra Stephens Washington Supreme Court 415 12th Ave SW W Olympia, WA 98504 Re: Supreme Court’s decision to sunset the LLLT Program Dear Justice Stephens, I am writing to express my concern over the Supreme Court’s recent decision to sunset the LLLT Program. I am the Program Chair for the Paralegal Program at Tacoma Community College (TCC) and have been involved with offering the LLLT core curriculum since 2012. Recently, the Court set a deadline requiring any LLLT students in the pipeline to complete the licensing requirements by July 31, 2021. Numerous students and grads in our program are now unable to complete every requirement (that the Supreme Court set forth in APR 28) by the deadline as the timeframe to complete the requirements are greater than the deadline provided. For example, 3000 experience hours amounts to approximately 18 months full-time work under a licensed attorney, well beyond the 1-year deadline. Additionally, there are students who are currently enrolled in classes at TCC and are awaiting admission to the 3-part family law course and have accumulated student loan debt and time pursuing this career path. Rather than impose a hard deadline, students who are currently in the pipeline should be allowed an opportunity to complete the requirements in APR 28. Regarding the low enrollment, I expressed my concern early on to the WSBA LLLT Board that the cost of the University of Washington Law School’s Continuing Education portion of the family law course was a deterrent for many people who would have otherwise become a LLLT. It was explained to me on numerous occasions by the board that “it was cheaper than law school” however, financial aid was unavailable due to the family law course sitting in the continuing education realm. Potential students who were interested in this career path did not often come from the means to afford the $6000 of out-of-pocket costs for the UW family law course. Often, they faced their own challenges dealing with the cost of family law matters and wanted to help those who could also not afford legal services. The LLLT Board seemed amenable to allowing the community colleges to help offer the 3-part family law course late last year and I believe this was too late. I hope that the Supreme Court will reconsider the July 31, 2021 deadline and allow those who have already started their work on becoming a LLLT, the opportunity to finish. What the Supreme Court has done has cut people off midway from accomplishing their career goals and helping individuals have access to affordable legal services. Sincerely, Jennifer Sorensen Public comments in opposition to sunsetting of LLLT license 75 of 135 Spokane Community College A COMMUNITY Business, Hospitality & Information Technologies Division COLLEGES Paralegal Program OF SPOKANE 1810 North Greene Street /MS2011 Spokane, Washington 99217-5399 June 12, 2020 Renata de Carvalho Garcia Innovative Licensing Programs Manager Washington State Bar Association 1325 Fourth Avenue, Suite 600 Seattle, WA 98101-2539 Re: Supreme Court’s decision to sunset the LLLT Program Spokane Community College’s Efforts to grow the LLLT Program Dear Ms. Garcia, I am writing to express concern over the Supreme Court’s recent decision to sunset the LLLT Program, and to share the active efforts Spokane Community College is taking to expand the LLLT Program to all portions of Eastern Washington. When I started in this position in 2016, our program presented many barriers to LLLT candidates. We had approximately 36 students enrolled in the paralegal program, and I do not recall any that were enrolled specifically for the LLLT program. Like the Court, I was concerned at the lack of growth of the LLLT candidates enrolling at our institution. Both my advisory committee and me, believed that LLLTs could become an important part of our legal community in Eastern Washington. We identified the following barriers that were preventing growth of the LLLT Program in Eastern Washington: • Minimal, if any, advertisement of the program in Spokane and surrounding areas. • We only offered on ground courses in Spokane. • We did not have a regular schedule for when LLLT courses were offered. • We offered classes during regular work hours. • The 45 credits of LLLT core curriculum were not financial aid eligible. We have and continue to address these barriers. Here are the active efforts we are making at Spokane Community College: • We include information about the LLLT Program on our webpage. • We offer online and hybrid courses. • We allow for remote attendance via Zoom. • We have an annual schedule for LLLT core curriculum classes. • Students can complete the LLLT core curriculum in one academic year. • As of fall 2020, the LLLT core curriculum will be financial aid eligible. 1 Public comments in opposition to sunsetting of LLLT license 76 of 135 Spokane Community College A COMMUNITY Business, Hospitality & Information Technologies Division COLLEGES Paralegal Program OF SPOKANE 1810 North Greene Street /MS2011 Spokane, Washington 99217-5399 • We have reached out to Labor and Industries regarding worker retraining. Two students have been approved for the LLLT core curriculum training using worker retraining funds. We continue to work with Labor and Industries to make them aware of our program. We have not yet seen the full results of our efforts, especially since the financial aid eligibility is set to start in the fall. However, we have already seen significant progress. • As of today, simply by memory, I know that we have at least 29 students either in the family law core curriculum or in the LLLT core curriculum. • The majority of students are incorporating the LLLT core curriculum into their degree plan in case they ultimately decide to become a LLLT. • We have students that have completed the LLLT core curriculum or are currently enrolled from the following counties: Benton, Chelan, Spokane, Stevens, Whitman, and Yakima. Nearly all of the students currently enrolled in the LLLT core curriculum at Spokane Community College would not be able to complete the requirements in the timeline allotted by the Supreme Court. Most students are completing the core curriculum this spring quarter or fall quarter. Other students are new this quarter and are eagerly pursuing this career path. I am hopeful that you will be able to share this information with individuals who are making decisions about the LLLT Program. At Spokane Community College, we are committed to growing the LLLT Program in all of Eastern Washington. LLLTs will play a vital role in delivery of meaningful legal services to clients in rural areas, as well as to individuals with moderate means. Respectfully Submitted, Mirisa L. Bradbury, WSBA 38089 Paralegal Program Instructor & Director 509-533-7470 [email protected] 2 Public comments in opposition to sunsetting of LLLT license 77 of 135 From: Stephens, Justice Debra L. To: SUP DL - JUSTICES Cc: SUP DL - ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANTS Subject: FW: Washington Limited License Legal Technician Program Date: Friday, June 19, 2020 3:44:04 PM Attachments: LTR Sup Ct St of WA RE LLLT 2020-06-19.pdf See below and attached. Chief Justice Debra L. Stephens Washington State Supreme Court PO Box 40929 Olympia, WA 98504 [email protected] 360-357-2050 From: Gwen Fisher [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Friday, June 19, 2020 3:29 PM To: Stephens, Justice Debra L. Good Afternoon, At the direction of the Paralegal Program Advisory Board for Edmonds College, the following letter notes concerns and comments on the pending action to sunset the Limited License Legal Technician Program. Respectfully, -- Gwen Fisher Program Support Specialist II ECE, Legal & SHS 425.640.1658 A woman in charge of her own destiny is a wonderful thing. Public comments in opposition to sunsetting of LLLT license 78 of 135 \!t EDMONDS I.I-I COLLEGE June 19, 2020 The Supreme Court Rajeev Majumdar, President State of Washington Washington State Bar Association Chief Justice Debra L. Stephens 1325 Fourth Avenue, Suite 600 P O Box 40929 Seattle, WA 98101-2539 Olympia, WA 98504-0929 Stephen R. Crossland, Chair Terra Nevitt, Interim Executive Director Limited License Legal Technician Board Washington State Bar Association 1325 Fourth Avenue, Suite 600 1325 Fourth Avenue, Suite 600 Seattle, WA 98101-2539 Seattle, WA 98101-2539 RE: Washington Limited License Legal Technician Program Dear Justice Stephens, The Supreme Court’s decision to sunset the Limited License Legal Technician (LLLT) program and no longer allow licensing after July 31, 2021, was made without any input from the seven colleges approved to provide the core curriculum or the institution currently providing the Family Law practice area curriculum, thus denying these institutions any semblance of due process. The Advisory Board of Edmonds College has unanimously agreed to seek the Court’s reconsideration of the deadline for those in the pipeline. The process to become an LLLT was designed with accessibility and equity in mind and allowed students from diverse backgrounds to approach the education, exam, and experience requirements in a variety of acceptable timelines. We are especially concerned about students from diverse backgrounds regarding the sudden termination of the license program without any consideration for how this decision uniquely impacts the diversity of legal service providers. At a minimum, the Board requests the Court adopt a more reasonable deadline for completion of requirements for licensure for those in the pipeline and a clear definition of who the pipeline includes. The Court could not have intended to have hundreds of students sidelined and thousands of dollars wasted by an unattainable deadline. It is clear from the arbitrary thirteen-month deadline provided; the Court does not understand the path to becoming licensed as a Limited License Legal Technician (LLLT) or what the “pipeline” entails. The following stakeholder institutions and students are deeply impacted, both financially and by reputation, by the closed-door decision of the Court without the opportunity to be heard: Edmonds College Highline College Spokane Community College Public comments in opposition to sunsetting of LLLT license 79 of 135 RE: Sunset of LLLT Program June 19, 2020 Page 2 Tacoma Community College Whatcom Community College University of Washington Continuum College Portland Community College Student consumer protection and Title IV of the Higher Ed Act, requires transparency by educational institutions. Students rely on career education programs offered by colleges and the expertise of advisors to make career choices and where to spend their limited financial resources, whether it be by financial aid, personal loan, personal funds, GI bills, grants, etc. Multiple students in the current LLLT candidate pipeline receive funding from a State disability retraining program and similar programs. Student funds and funding are now lost, and students will be repaying loans for classes wasted on a career path no longer available due to the Court’s decision. The colleges, already reeling from the rapid changes brought on by the COVID-19 pandemic must now consider how to salvage students’ education and expended funding. These colleges have devoted countless hours, energy and funds to create the core education programs, design classes, align class schedules and market a new profession, only to have the Court take it away in an afternoon, absent any input from those who have much to lose – the students and the institutions. Given a thirteen-month deadline, many of the students currently enrolled in the family law practice area curriculum will not be able to attain licensing and will completely lose out on the money, time and energy already expended over several years, it is simply untenable for many in the LLLT path. For example, unless a student has already attained at least half of the 3,000 hours of work supervised by an attorney – they likely will be unable to be licensed by July 31, 2021. As the Court is aware, 3,000 hours equals approximately eighteen-months of full-time employment. Most candidates do not receive credit from the supervising attorney on an hour- for-hour basis, as much time spent in a law office by a non-lawyer cannot be classified as “substantive” legal work that would “otherwise be performed by a lawyer”. Candidates in the pipeline have been relying on APR 28, Regulation 9, which provides a candidate for licensure forty (40) months after passing the exam to get licensed, so few have the necessary hours prior to completion of the practice area curriculum. Additionally, a very real problem is that students have a further burden in completing their hours due to the Stay at Home Order and impacts of COVID-19. Candidates currently enrolled in the practice area classes will complete class on December 11, 2020. To sit for the licensing exam, in addition to completing the rigorous practice area classes, they must take and pass the Paralegal Core Curriculum Exam (PCCE), administered by the National Federation of Paralegal Associations (NFPA). This test is controlled by the NFPA and availability to take the exam is beyond the control of the candidate, colleges, LLLT Board or Public comments in opposition to sunsetting of LLLT license 80 of 135 RE: Sunset of LLLT Program June 19, 2020 Page 3 Court. This must be accomplished prior to the deadline of October 5th in order to submit their application to sit for the February exam, over two months before they even finish the practice area classes. If a candidate sits for the February exam, the candidate will then have five months to acquire 3,000 hours of work experience (the equivalent of working 600 hours per month), if they have not been able attain those hours prior to sitting for the exam. Due to reliance on APR 28, Regulation 9, few candidates will be able to attain those hours prior to the July deadline. If a current family law practice area student does not pass the February 2020 exam, the first exam date available to them, there is no way to take the July exam, receive their grade, complete any hours, submit their application for licensure and be licensed by the end of that very same month. No lawyer is expected to pass the bar exam with only one opportunity, nor has this ever been the case for the LLLTs (APR 28, Reg. 8(e): An applicant who passes the practice area examination but fails the professional responsibility examination or vice versa may retake the failed exam at the next two administrations of the exam. The passing score shall be valid for one year from the date the applicant is notified of the exam results. If the applicant does not pass the failed exam within one year of such notification, the applicant shall be required to retake the exam he or she passed). Numbers are still being collected, but the LLLT Board estimated at least 200 students are presently enrolled in core education/Associate’s Degree programs with the goal of becoming a LLLT. The LLLT Board reports there are twenty students currently enrolled in the practice area education, another fifty-eight students have completed the Practice area education in less than the last eighteen months and are working toward their 3,000 hours and studying for the LLLT licensing exam, and finally four students passed the winter exam in the last six months and are working towards their license. ·------• ------• ~-ti·.years- (WorkJng on Core Education/Associate's Degree or Waiver)• 1-2 Vear, (Working on Practice Area Education) 175 ~18 months Complete Practice Area Education) - ~- _-_-.,-- .•~-.. ·:-._ .~~-IYJ9~'!S.• _: .,., ' ~~. (Pa s~_!i!..Wr(l~~t- ~A ,,-:> • 58 • 4 •------• ------6...---...... l.______: Public comments in opposition to sunsetting of LLLT license 81 of 135 RE: Sunset of LLLT Program June 19, 2020 Page 4 For the Court’s further consideration, the State Board of Community and Technical College’s (SBCTC) default time period for sunsetting a program is a 3-year teach out, provided students are in the program. The Federal Higher Education Act prohibits colleges from misrepresenting educational programs, financial charges or employability of its graduates. SBCTC handles the complaint review process for Washington state public community and technical college students (https://www.sbctc.edu/colleges-staff/programs-services/student-services/resources.aspx). It is anticipated the SBCTC will be asked to review complaints based on the Court’s decision and its effect on pipeline candidates. As noted above, there has been a substantial investment of time and money in the LLLT program. It was designed to provide legal services to those having difficulty paying for such services. It was intended to give more people effective access to our judicial system. Information we’ve received indicates that this fledgling program is working well. We’ve received reports that various courts want this resource available to that portion of the public it was designed to serve. Attorneys appreciate having this service available for clients who, quite frankly, can’t afford them but need legal services they can afford. We’ve heard no reasonable justification for discontinuing this program. We are aware of no effort to obtain input from the public, the lower courts, or practicing members of the Bar. In light of the benefits of the LLLT program to the public and our system of justice, and the significant amount of time, money and effort already invested in the program, it seems only prudent that a serious request for input be made before this program is abandoned. Respectfully submitted, Paralegal Program Advisory Committee – Edmonds College The Hon. Theresa Pouley, Dept. Head Mary K. Montgomery, Chair Scott Haddock Albert Lihrus The Hon. Gary Bass Jenna Wolfe Brandon McGraw Sarah Cates Bove’ Libby Freese Rico Tessandore Public comments in opposition to sunsetting of LLLT license 82 of 135 From: Stephens, Justice Debra L. To: SUP DL - JUSTICES Cc: SUP DL - ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANTS Subject: FW: LLLT Practice Area Curriculum Stats Date: Wednesday, July 1, 2020 5:28:49 PM Please see below. Chief Justice Debra L. Stephens Washington State Supreme Court PO Box 40929 Olympia, WA 98504 [email protected] 360-357-2050 -----Original Message----- From: Jennifer Petersen [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, July 1, 2020 3:18 PM To: Stephens, Justice Debra L. Dear Justice Stephens and Justice Madsen: As one of the instructors in the LLLT Practice Area Curriculum courses, I write to update you on the status of the current Family Law Practice Area Curriculum candidates in the pipeline. I understand the Court will be en banc next week. As I reported at the May 12, 2020, LLLT Board/BOG meeting with the Court, there were 20 candidates enrolled in the Family Law I practice area curriculum. This number comprised of 16 "first time" practice area curriculum students and 4 "audit" students. As LLLTs have no "bar prep" course option, we opened up the classes to former practice area students who felt they needed additional formal preparation for the licensing exam. The Family Law II course began last night and, unfortunately, we lost five (5) of the first time candidates - which is 31.25% of candidates in the final education portion of the pipeline due to the impossibility of licensing within 13 months (i.e. finishing the course in December 2020 combined with taking/passing the PCCE, attaining 3,000 hours, meeting additional requirements to apply for the exam, passing the exam, and meeting the requirements to apply for licensing all before July 31, 2021). I am devastated for these students given the time, effort and funds they have dedicated to becoming licensed as a LLLT. I understand these five are only a fraction of those in the pipeline, but they were so close after years of hard work - only to have their career goals extinguished in an afternoon. It is my hope, at a minimum, the Court will reconsider the deadline for those in the pipeline. If it is extended and acted upon quickly, I believe I can get the candidates we lost back on track in Family Law II. I am committed to doing my part to salvage their education and career goals. I appreciate you time and attention. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you require additional information. Respectfully, Jen Petersen FL 1 and 2 - Instructor Public comments in opposition to sunsetting of LLLT license 83 of 135 [email protected] Public comments in opposition to sunsetting of LLLT license 84 of 135 Dawson, Seth From: OFFICE RECEPTIONIST, CLERK Sent: Friday, June 12, 2020 2:55 PM To: Carlson, Susan Subject: FW: From: Yesenia Avelar [mailto: ] Sent: Friday, June 12, 2020 2:44 PM To: OFFICE RECEPTIONIST, CLERK To whom it may concern, I am writing in order to voice my concerns regarding getting rid of LLLT's. I am a mother of and taken a loan if $5,000 to obtain a lawyer. When the lawyer I obtained used up the $5,000 & added another $3,000 to my balance due he dropped me as a client in the middle of a divorce, leaving me without legal representation and with a huge debt I now have to pay. I found Christy an LLLT in Seattle through a friend and she has been so very helpful and affordable. Not everyone can take a loan out or obtain a lawyer. LLLT are affordable, and have helped me throughout my case to I am more knowledgeable about my rights. The lawyer I retained left me and my children without a care and did not represent me in any way that benefited me. I wasnt made aware of many things which are now a problem and if it wasn't for having an LLLT to help me I don't know what I would've done. I have exhausted all my money and having an LLLT is a life saver! Please continue to license and recognize LLLT's in Washington state. They have helped me and can continue to help others in need of affordable legal assistance Thank you Yesenia Avelar 1 Public comments in opposition to sunsetting of LLLT license 85 of 135 Dawson, Seth From: OFFICE RECEPTIONIST, CLERK Sent: Tuesday, June 16, 2020 1:57 PM To: Carlson, Susan Subject: FW: EMAIL From: Leonard McDonald [mailto: ] Sent: Tuesday, June 16, 2020 1:45 PM To: OFFICE RECEPTIONIST, CLERK Sent from my Sprint Samsung Galaxy S20 5G. From: Leonard McDonald You sent an email that essentially said people trying to do what you do will not be able to because the bar doesn't want to share 1%. First I want to express my gratitude to you and your efforts on my behalf. Secondly it is disconcerting to me how in a closed door session people can make decisions that negatively affect the livelihood of hard working folks who put the needs of others before themselves, like you did for me. Not everyone can afford an Attorney. Nor should people have to struggle with finances to file court documents. I wish the law was based on truth. Unfortunately, the law has become more about money and power than truth. It's people such as yourself that give others hope. I encourage you to keep doing what you do. GOD BLESS YOU . Thank you for all your help with my situation ( child support). It was very nice to have someone finally believe me. And go to bat for me. I am grateful. Sincerely Leonard T. McDonald (Troy) Sent from my Sprint Samsung Galaxy S20 5G. 1 Public comments in opposition to sunsetting of LLLT license 86 of 135 From: OFFICE RECEPTIONIST, CLERK To: Carlson, Susan; Lennon, Erin Subject: FW: The LLLT program Date: Monday, June 22, 2020 8:56:06 AM From: Judy Stilson [mailto: ] Sent: Monday, June 22, 2020 8:42 AM To: OFFICE RECEPTIONIST, CLERK I wonder how soon we can get a rehearing on this subject? It was done without proper representation and needs to be reinstated to it's former state. My son is being denied his parental rights by his ex-wife, who is very controlling. The lawyer he consulted asked for several thousand dollars to start, and a monthly payment as they go along. He's already paying $1,000 a month in child support and paying for himself to live. He would be totally out of luck, and out of legal help without programs like this. Please reconsider! Sincerely, Judy Stilson Public comments in opposition to sunsetting of LLLT license 87 of 135 From: OFFICE RECEPTIONIST, CLERK To: Carlson, Susan; Lennon, Erin Subject: FW: Chantel Turner LLLT support letter.pdf Date: Friday, June 26, 2020 4:59:23 PM Attachments: Chantel Turner LLLT support letter.pdf From: Chantel Turner [mailto ] Sent: Friday, June 26, 2020 4:58 PM To: OFFICE RECEPTIONIST, CLERK To: The Supreme Court Justices of Washington State Please see the attached letter in support of continuing licensing of LLLTs. Sincerely, Chantel Turner Sent via the Samsung Galaxy S9+, an AT&T 5G Evolution capable smartphone Get Outlook for Android Public comments in opposition to sunsetting of LLLT license 88 of 135 June 26th, 2020 To whom it may concern, I am writing this letter in support of continued licensure for LLLTs. Last year, I filed for a divorce and would not have been able to afford to do so through the services of an attorney. I have no legal background and so I had no idea of how to file and handle the legalities of a divorce. I hired Tamara Garrison, a Family Law Legal Technician. She helped me wade through the confusing and seemingly endless paperwork. While she could not advise me regarding financial issues concerning the divorce, she was able to inform me of what my options were and helped me navigate through the process of filing to best meet my needs and the needs of my children. If I had not had Tamara to help me with the divorce filing, I am not sure what would have happened. I can’t imagine having to file without the help of legal expert during an already overwhelming time in my life. Since the divorce, I have been able to move on and provide a stable life for my children. It would be huge disservice to working and middle class citizens, to not have access to affordable, well trained legal professionals such as LLLTs. It is my hope that you will reconsider your decision to eliminate the further licensing of these much needed legal professionals. Sincerely, Chantel Turner Public comments in opposition to sunsetting of LLLT license 89 of 135 From: OFFICE RECEPTIONIST, CLERK To: Carlson, Susan; Lennon, Erin Subject: FW: Opposition of decision to cancel LLLT License in Washington State Date: Tuesday, June 30, 2020 8:22:07 AM Attachments: Murray Impact Statement.pdf From: Billie Murray [mailto: ] Sent: Monday, June 29, 2020 6:19 PM To: OFFICE RECEPTIONIST, CLERK Please read attached. I am in strong opposition to the recent Supreme Court decision to cancel the Limited License Legal Technician (LLLT) license for any future LLLTs in Washington state. This matter is very serious and has very limiting repercussions to those of us who have benefited and need them the most. Thank you for your time, Billie Murray Public comments in opposition to sunsetting of LLLT license 90 of 135 I write today in strong opposition of the recent Supreme Court decision to cancel the Limited License Legal Technician (LLLT) license for any future LLLTs in Washington state. This would be a great injustice to many people like me. The people who need equal access to justice, but do not have the financial means to afford an attorney. I tell you my story in hopes that you understand that I am but one individual, among the masses, who benefit from affordable legal services. The services that I received from an LLLT helped me through one of the scariest times in my life. I am a single mother of two little boys and have been their primary caretaker. I have been in the middle of a custody battle for over a year now. The father of our children is supported by a very wealthy family. I was bullied with litigation and he threatened to limit my parental rights, just because he could, not for a valid legal reason. I felt trapped, discouraged, and fearful. They knew I did not have the means to fight a long court battle. In addition, my job in the service industry was eliminated during COVID-19, decimating me financially. After setting up meetings with low income clinics, and having meetings with lawyers, I came across Tamara Garrison’s information. Within our first conversation, Tamara provided more insight and clear guidance than I had received so far. I felt that she would go to bat for me. She gave me hope. That hope was EVERYTHING I needed to have the courage to stand up for what was best for my children in court. She was a beacon of light in a very scary and dark time. I cannot express the amount of peace that brought to me. In her role as an LLLT she stood for something that this country is built on – all voices matter. For part of my case, I paid an attorney to represent me in court, because it was outside of the scope of a LLLT. The attorney was not responsive, and I almost gave up and accepted that a parent with lucrative means could buy enough justice to bury me. I reached out to Tamara again and she convinced me to stay in the fight. She assured me that she was there for me. I engaged her services again and my case began to turn around. I had support to make a fair response to the injustice that was put in my path. Tamara helped level the playing field in court. I am not alone in this struggle. So many parents do their best within their means to do right for their children. Without an LLLT, I would have been left without a choice. Access to justice should be an essential right. It shocks me that the Supreme Court decided to eliminate one of the few low-cost legal resources that the LLLT license provides with little thought or comment from the community. Many people cannot afford an attorney. This directly impacts families, especially when one party has representation and the other is forced to represent themselves. The LLLT license should be strongly supported, not eliminated. Tamara passionately advocated for my case, she clearly advised me on the court system and my legal rights, and she achieved a positive outcome for my children. Tamara saved the lives of two little boys, who now have a better quality of life. That is Public comments in opposition to sunsetting of LLLT license 91 of 135 what it comes down to. Without that option, you deny people with low incomes the equal right to fight for their families and understand their legal options. Without access to LLLTs, I fear many people will not be granted the help to navigate the system. Their ability to clearly tell the other side of the story will be impeded because they cannot afford a legal advocate. Society should not be built on how much justice you can buy, but on the foundation that every voice should be heard. Tamara, in her role as an LLLT, gave me a voice. The LLLT license is a lifeline to equality that should not be taken away, with little thought of the impact to the public, in a closed meeting with the Supreme Court. LLLTs work diligently for their clients, against extreme opposition from attorneys, for a fraction of the pay. They are basically a human rights movement for the financial underdog in family court. I fear what will happen if the LLLT license is eliminated. I do not worry for myself, but I worry for innocent children without a voice, who will suffer the most. They deserve a fair shot. Their fate should not be determined by the size of a parent’s bank account. People should not struggle to simply be heard. Taking away the LLLT license will further the gap in this system of access to legal help. This serves no one. I cannot in good faith sit quietly without speaking out. We must stop blindly accepting that justice is something to be bought. The public should have the chance to share how truly necessary the LLLT license is. If the license is banned, we are going backwards. The LLLT program was my only resource for help and I am certain I am not the only person who received essential advocacy. Do not stifle our voices. Listen to us, those in need. This should not be another circumstance where attorneys have a louder voice than the people in need of access to justice. Please remember the root of what this is about. Equality, not what you can afford. LLLTs have a heart and drive for justice rather than the highest paid positions working for hourly rates that most cannot afford. The decision to cut this program warrants more research and comment from the public to truly understand the consequences of the loss of this resource. You have a choice – let us be heard. Thank you for your time and consideration, Billie Murray Public comments in opposition to sunsetting of LLLT license 92 of 135 From: OFFICE RECEPTIONIST, CLERK To: Carlson, Susan Subject: FW: Bring back the LLLT profession Date: Tuesday, July 21, 2020 3:55:47 PM From: Elizabeth Lemon [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 2020 3:44 PM To: OFFICE RECEPTIONIST, CLERK Subject: Bring back the LLLT profession Washington Supreme Court, I am writing in response to the decision to sunset the profession of Limited License Legal Technician. First of all, the fact that this decision was made without the knowledge and input of the people of Washington is abhorrent. It is a decision made in privilege without any attempt to understand the full impact this decision would have. It seems that either there is no understanding of who uses the services of an LLLT and this decision was made in ignorance, OR there is an understanding and if so, then this decision was made to deliberately oppress people of color, people of low SES, other underrepresented populations, and people escaping domestic violence. I was one of those people last year who got out of an abusive relationship and had very little in terms of financial support. The only way I was able to extricate myself from a dangerous situation legally was with the help of a Limited License Legal Technician. There was no way I would have been able to afford the rates of a lawyer. Having an LLLT gave me the resources and support to understand how to navigate the court system, file my documents when I did not have the time and capacity to do so due to other factors I had to deal with when leaving a DV situation, and they made sure that both my ex husband and myself got a fair distribution all while keeping my location hidden so I could stay safe. To make the decision to end this profession is a slap in the face to all the work the people of Washington are trying to do to ensure equity between people of all races, ethnicities, creeds etc. Do better for the people, do the right thing. Revoke the decision and bring back the Limited License Legal Technician profession. In fact, do one better, and expand their ability to also assist with landlord/tenant issues, debt collection and more. Regards, Elizabeth Lemon Seattle Resident Public comments in opposition to sunsetting of LLLT license 93 of 135 From: Stephens, Justice Debra L. To: SUP DL - JUSTICES Cc: SUP DL - ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANTS Subject: FW: LLLT Board"s Letter re: Sunsetting of LLLT License Date: Monday, June 22, 2020 9:28:51 AM Attachments: LLLT Board re Sunset.pdf See below and attached. As noted, these materials are also being saved in the LLLT folder on the T-drive. Chief Justice Debra L. Stephens Washington State Supreme Court PO Box 40929 Olympia, WA 98504 [email protected] 360-357-2050 From: Jennifer Ortega [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Friday, June 19, 2020 7:07 PM To: Stephens, Justice Debra L. Dear Chief Justice Stephens, Attached please find the letter from the LLLT Board requesting the Supreme Court reverse its decision regarding sunsetting the LLLT license, amongst other requests. Thank you, Jennifer Ortega, LLLT | Legal Technician Division, PLLC 866-432-6529 ext. 701 [email protected] Our office continues to abide by Governor Inslee’s May 31, 2020 “Safe Start – Stay Healthy” proclamation, and remains closed to the public. Legal Technician Division, PLLC continues to operate remotely and provide clients and others with secure video conferencing for all meetings. We appreciate your understanding as we work diligently to provide limited legal services through our new remote platforms. Please do not hesitate to contact our office with any questions or concerns. Confidentiality Notice: This email message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message. Public comments in opposition to sunsetting of LLLT license 94 of 135 LLLT Board WASHINGTON STATE Established by Washington Supreme Court APR 28 BAR ASSOCIATION Administered by the WSBA Regulatory Services Department Stephen Crossland, Chair June 19, 2020 Justices of the Washington Supreme Court Temple of Justice P.O. Box 40929 Olympia, WA 98504 Re: Washington Supreme Court Vote to Sunset the LLLT License Dear Justices: We, the Limited License Legal Technician (LLLT) Board, are very concerned about not only the decision that you, the Supreme Court, made regarding sunsetting the LLLT program but also and more importantly we are very concerned about the process, or lack thereof, used to accomplish that decision. You are seen as the keeper of “rules and process.” When the Court acts in a quasi-legislative or rule- making role, it ought to be 100% in public and transparent. Deliberations should be open and with due process. We are of the mind that at a minimum the Court should hold hearings and invite stakeholders on all sides of the issue to present relevant evidence and arguments to discuss this program which embraces hundreds and hundreds of stakeholders (community colleges, students, LLLTs, trial judges, persons interested in access to justice and finally and certainly not last, the consuming public). The time to complete the LLLT license requirements should be extended. As you will learn about later in this report, there are numerous students who have loans they took out to obtain a LLLT license. These funds are not transferable and will be lost. In addition, community colleges have invested heavily in this program over the last seven years. It is false economy to remove a program that trains people to provide the public with meaningful access to the courts. The provision of the legal services continues throughout the career of a LLLT with only regulatory oversight. Even if you sunset the program, there will still be expenses in connection with maintaining the licenses of the existing LLLTs. The Court at a minimum should continue the program until the National Center for State Courts completes its study, which will be perhaps as long as two years. This study has been in the works for at least two years but had been awaiting funding from Congress. It would seem that the Court would be interested in the information and conclusions that such a study might shed on this topic. This study will undoubtedly answer the question of whether the LLLT program is “worth it.” Some of you have suggested that the license and the LLLTs are not serving the clients as originally intended. This license was never conceived to serve only those with incomes of 0% to 200% of the federal poverty level. It was always designed to serve those who have some money (200% to 400%), but not enough to hire a lawyer. However, most LLLTs do also serve clients in the 0% to 200% portion of the market. In addition, they do more pro bono per capita than most lawyers. Page 1 of 7 Public comments in opposition to sunsetting of LLLT license 95 of 135 LLLT Board WASHINGTON STATE Established by Washington Supreme Court APR 28 BAR ASSOCIATION Administered by the WSBA Regulatory Services Department Stephen Crossland, Chair As you may be aware, Utah has adopted a similar rule. There are other states and provinces which are seriously contemplating adopting similar licenses, including but not limited to: Oregon, California, Arizona, New Mexico, Colorado, Minnesota, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Ontario. This clearly is an idea whose time has come. This visionary program was initiated after much study, by GR 25 in 2001. The LLLT program is not the solution to the access to justice problem, but it is a “tool in the toolbox” to help address this problem. It serves a public need. Our government has given the judicial branch of government and our profession a monopoly, and with that comes the obligation to deliver legal services to all so that they can effectively participate in this concept of governance. If not this, then what? If not now, then when? We implore you to reinstate the license and allow us to inform you about all aspects of the license. There are other stakeholders who are harmed by sunsetting the program and whose voices should have been considered. The Court did not fully consider the harmful impact of its sudden decision to sunset the LLLT program. The LLLT program was an investment in time and money not only from the WSBA, but also from LLLTs, potential LLLTs, community colleges, and UW and Gonzaga law schools. Stakeholders other than just the WSBA Board of Governors’ Budget and Audit Committee should have a voice in the Court's consideration of the fate of the LLLT program. There are immediate concerns that should be remedied for existing candidates in the LLLT pipeline. The date for completion of the LLLT license requirements should be extended for an additional three to four years. Students are reeling from the Court’s decision. These are people who can ill-afford to absorb the loss of money and time spent pursuing the LLLT license. Students rely on career education programs offered by colleges and the expertise of advisors to make career choices. Their course of study dictates where they spend their limited financial resources -- whether it be financial aid, personal loans, personal funds, GI bills, grants, disability and worker retraining funds, or some combination of financial aid. Many students in the current LLLT candidate pipeline received funding from a State disability retraining program or a similar program. Student funds and the available funding for retraining are now lost; students will be repaying loans for classes in a career path no longer available due to the Court’s decision. The LLLT core education takes two years of full-time attendance to complete, assuming the community college is offering the required classes in perfect order. The candidate must have another 1.5 years of full-time work to obtain the necessary work experience. The timeline for those who cannot afford school, have demands of family, are unable to navigate traditional education, and those who cannot find work experience will be longer. Seven colleges relied on the promises of APR 28, outreach by the WSBA, and marketing for the LLLT program. Both the WSBA and the LLLT Board did outreach to schools and groups to inform people about Page 2 of 7 Public comments in opposition to sunsetting of LLLT license 96 of 135 LLLT Board WASHINGTON STATE Established by Washington Supreme Court APR 28 BAR ASSOCIATION Administered by the WSBA Regulatory Services Department Stephen Crossland, Chair and to encourage them to pursue the LLLT license. People relied on those representations and began their coursework. Many of the students in the core curriculum classes would not be pursuing a paralegal degree but for the opportunity for a LLLT license. The colleges offering LLLT pathway courses are reeling from the Court’s decision and now must redesign programs in an effort to salvage students’ education and expended funding. These schools have devoted countless hours, energy, and funds to create the core education programs for both a two-year A.S. degree and a LLLT certificate awarded to people who already have a bachelor's degree. The colleges designed classes, aligned class schedules, and marketed a new profession, only to have the Court take it away. The sunset of the program was without any input from those who have much to lose – the students and the institutions. The colleges modified their curriculum and some had to undergo an extensive on-campus program review by the LLLT education committee. The schools offering the LLLT core curriculum are: Edmonds Community College Highline College Spokane Community College Tacoma Community College Whatcom Community College University of Washington Continuum College Portland Community College Under most educational structures for post-secondary institutions, student consumer protection laws and Title IV of the Higher Ed Act generally expect that colleges discontinuing operations or programs will engage in a three- to four-year “teach-out.” When phasing out any program, the college gives students already in the program an opportunity to complete their degree. The sunset deadline for completing LLLT license requirements should be extended by three to four years so that the schools can complete their obligation to their students. The Washington State Board for Community and Technical Colleges (SBCTC) oversees the program approval process for professional and technical programs in the community and technical college system. This process includes guidance to colleges about how to assess program viability and the process to follow if they decide to close a program. SBCTC defaults to the three-year teach-out; colleges are required to continue offering those programs for three or four years if there are currently enrolled students. SBCTC guidelines should be considered and their input heard regarding the program and the timelines. By imposing the arbitrary thirteen-month deadline to finish the license requirements, the Court has not fully considered all of the stakeholders. The closed-door decision of the Court did not give the stakeholder institutions or their students an opportunity to be heard. The decision disregards the time required for completing the path to becoming a LLLT and what the “pipeline” entails. Schools and students are severely and negatively impacted, both financially and by reputation, for having pursued the LLLT curriculum, which they now must abandon. Page 3 of 7 Public comments in opposition to sunsetting of LLLT license 97 of 135 LLLT Board WASHINGTON STATE Established by Washington Supreme Court APR 28 BAR ASSOCIATION Administered by the WSBA Regulatory Services Department Stephen Crossland, Chair The efforts of the colleges to provide the education for the LLLT license has been tireless. For example, as recently as May 8, 2020, Spokane Community College completed the program review and approval process administered by the State Board for Community and Technical Colleges to add a LLLT Certificate to their program roster. Also recently, Whatcom Community College worked with UW and Gonzaga law professors over the last year to offer the Family Law Practice Area curriculum designed by the law schools. Since the UW Continuum College could not offer the classes, the LLLT Board and the law schools scrambled to move the classes so that LLLT students would not be further delayed in taking these courses. The LLLT Board requests the Court reverse/reconsider the decision based in part on the following issues: Loss of Irreplaceable Student Funding - There are at least 275 students in the pipeline who have invested time and thousands of dollars pursuing the core education and the LLLT substantive education. Some of the funds used by students are specialized educational funding that cannot be replaced. Most of the 275 students cannot complete licensure requirements by June 31, 2021. Especially hard-hit are those students with disabilities. COVID-19 Impairments - Students in the educational pipeline, attorneys who provide supervision, and community college stakeholders are affected by COVID-19 restrictions which significantly impair timely completion of education, testing, and the experience hour requirements. Due to the physical and economic shutdown, LLLT candidates cannot find employment or even volunteer opportunities where they could obtain the required 3,000 hours of experience. Community College Investment - Seven Washington community colleges invested significant resources and hundreds of thousands of dollars in curriculum, staffing, faculty, and marketing to develop and implement the LLLT core curriculum and practice area classes. Those colleges are left holding the bag because to their detriment they relied on the promise of the LLLT license. Teach-Out Requirements - Community colleges are expected to provide a three- or four-year phasing out of educational offerings. To fulfill their obligations under Title IV, colleges should have a significant amount of time before program sunset so their students can complete the core curriculum. Other stakeholders were adversely impacted and should have an opportunity for their voice to be heard: No Cost Legal Resources - Public law libraries and legal aid clinics developed LLLT-specific resources for indigent litigants and depend on LLLT volunteers for their clinics and workshops. Practicing LLLTs and Attorneys - Both LLLTs and attorneys have relied upon the growth of the profession and public awareness to build their businesses. Attorneys who developed profitable relationships with LLLTs have relied upon those relationships and referral sources to sustain their business models Page 4 of 7 Public comments in opposition to sunsetting of LLLT license 98 of 135 LLLT Board WASHINGTON STATE Established by Washington Supreme Court APR 28 BAR ASSOCIATION Administered by the WSBA Regulatory Services Department Stephen Crossland, Chair The Legal Consumer - Thousands of Washingtonians are now permanently priced-out of the legal marketplace. Even if sunsetting the program, the Court should change the rules to facilitate completion of the license requirements for those people already in the pipeline. There are rule changes which should be adopted even if the program is sunset. At the May 12th meeting with the court, the LLLT Board requested a change in program test certification requirements, specifically changing the rule so that LLLT candidates do not have to take unnecessary redundant tests from the national organization (i.e. as addressed in GR 9 cover sheet, require either the PACE or the PCCE, but not both). Also requested was the reduction in the experience hours, from 3,000 to 1,500. The reduction in hours would help mitigate the COVID-19 impact on candidates who because of the shutdown are unable to obtain work or volunteer hours. The proposed rule changes regarding testing and experience hours should be adopted. There should be further opportunity to be heard. Please hear us and the other stakeholders in the LLLT program. The LLLT Board received no notice the Court was considering immediate termination of the Limited License Legal Technician license. Rather, we were working on the Court’s prior requests for areas of practice that would align with the Civil Legal Needs Studies. No rule to terminate the license was proposed, nor was a comment period provided. The LLLT Board was not given the opportunity to explore and present information on alternative fundraising or program modifications that may have better informed the Court on the budget issue. The rule provided for self-sufficiency after a reasonable period. The Board believed that, similar to the nurse practitioner program, 10 to 15 years would be a reasonable period. Other scenarios are available and should be considered. Neither the WSBA Board of Governors (BOG) nor the Budget and Audit Committee of the BOG had a public meeting or public vote to request an immediate sunset of the license. It was not until January 2020 that the Budget and Audit committee requested a business plan, which the LLLT Board provided in April 2020. Unlike the BOG’s Memorandum of Understanding with the Access to Justice Board, which contains a provision for good faith in resolving disputes, the LLLT Board had no opportunity to engage in good faith discourse with the BOG about the LLLT Board’s business plan. In citing a “small number of interested individuals” as a reason to terminate the license, the Court seemingly overlooked hundreds of people (at least 275) who are and have been actively involved in developing and/or earning the LLLT license. There are numerous steps to becoming licensed: completion of core and practice area classes, passing multiple exams, working 3,000 supervised hours, obtaining malpractice insurance, and being sworn in. The LLLT process was developed with all the phases to help ensure quality services are provided to the public. Completion of all phases is time-consuming and delays the immediate licensing of LLLTs. Page 5 of 7 Public comments in opposition to sunsetting of LLLT license 99 of 135 LLLT Board WASHINGTON STATE Established by Washington Supreme Court APR 28 BAR ASSOCIATION Administered by the WSBA Regulatory Services Department Stephen Crossland, Chair The pathway to becoming an LLLT was designed for inclusion. Community colleges have as a mission an inclusive learning environment that meets the needs of the local community. Often non-traditional students who cannot attend classes full-time, must drive hours to attend community college, while continuing to support their family, or those students who need a reasonable disability accommodation must take additional time to complete their degree. Students from underrepresented and rural populations needed time to find and start the program. Now that they have, they should be allowed to finish. Their voices should be heard and their needs considered. Members of the public should have been given the opportunity to be heard. LLLTs have provided access to the courthouse that offers self-represented family law litigants both hope and actual results in obtaining fair and reasonable outcomes for their cases. If these members of the public had been given the opportunity to comment, the Court would have heard personal and agonizing stories about their difficulties in understanding court rules and unwritten court procedures, and understanding the law and their rights under those laws. Their needs are not met by a packet of materials mailed to them by NJP or purchased at a law library. Everyone, from students to educators to LLLTs and attorneys, and most importantly, the public, should have been provided the opportunity to be heard. The Court made its decision without the necessary input from all stakeholders. We request the Court reverse its decision to sunset the LLLT license on that basis. If the Court will not consider ensuring all stakeholders are heard, then we ask that the Court extend the deadline for completing the requirements for licensure to at least August 1, 2023, which is enough time for a “teach-out” and for the National Center for State Courts to complete its study. We ask the Court to respond as soon as reasonably possible. In particular, because students are registering for their classes, we request the Court extend the time for students in the pipeline to complete their education. We ask for enactment of the proposed changes in the rules regarding the duplicative national tests and reducing the experience hours in order to accommodate the difficulties caused by COVID-19. We request the Court reverse or defer the sunsetting of the program until the National Center for State Courts completes its study. Thank you for your further consideration. Respectfully, Stephen R. Crossland Chair, Limited License Legal Technician Board Page 6 of 7 Public comments in opposition to sunsetting of LLLT license 100 of 135 LLLT Board WASHINGTON STATE Established by Washington Supreme Court APR 28 BAR ASSOCIATION Administered by the WSBA Regulatory Services Department Stephen Crossland, Chair LLLT Board Committee Chairs: Sarah Bove Christy Carpenter Nancy C. Ivarinen Jennifer Ortega Jennifer Petersen Amy Riedel Enclosures: 1. Illustration - Students in LLLT Pipeline 2. Timeline to Complete LLLT Licensing 3. SBCTC 2012 Program Approval Guidelines 4. GR 9 Cover sheet re: PCCE/PACE requirements 5. Memorandum of Understanding - Access to Justice Board Cc: Terra Nevitt Rajeev Majumdar Page 7 of 7 Public comments in opposition to sunsetting of LLLT license 101 of 135 Illustration – Students in LLLT Pipeline 175175-193 – 193 20 We estimate 275 students are presently enrolled in core education/Associate’s Degree programs with the goal of becoming a LLLT. • 20 students are currently enrolled in the practice area education. • 58 students have completed the Practice area education in less than the last 18 months, are working toward their 3,000 hours, and are studying for the LLLT licensing exam. • 4 students passed the winter exam in February 2020 and are working towards their license. Public comments in opposition to sunsetting of LLLT license 102 of 135 Timeline to Complete LLLT Licensing PCCE: Candidates must take and pass the Paralegal Core Curriculum Exam (PCCE), administered by the National Federation of Paralegal Associations (NFPA). This test is controlled by the NFPA and availability to take the exam is beyond the control of the candidate, colleges, LLLT Board or Court. Current candidates in the Practice Area Curriculum have contacted NFPA and have been advised the administration of the test is provided by a third party and NFPA has limited control over the test availability – students are awaiting confirmation from NFPA whether NFPA can do anything to work with students on testing availability. Also, to even test for the PCCE, candidates must meet certain criteria, which many in the pipeline do not meet yet. This criteria was just changed a few weeks ago in response to COVID: FastTrack PCCE® Synthesized Pathways Education, Military Years of Substantive CLE Service, CRP credentials Paralegal Experience Bachelor Degree 6 months 1 hour of NFPA-approved ethics CLE, or higher within 2 years preceding application Associate Degree 1 year 1 hour of NFPA-approved ethics CLE, within 2 years preceding application Paralegal Certificate[4] 1 years 1 hour of NFPA-approved ethics CLE, within 2 years preceding application Military Paralegal Defined by rank 1 hour of NFPA-approved ethics CLE, Rate (Job)[5] within 2 years preceding application NFPA Assurance of N/A N/A Learning Education Partner Students[6] High School or GED 5 years 12 hours of NFPA-approved CLES, including 1 CLE hour of ethics, within 2 years preceding the Application https://www.paralegals.org/i4a/pages/index.cfm?pageid=3813 PACE/Waiver Students: The Court had the opportunity to fix this issue as a barrier to licensing and did not address the Board’s request. Students who have already taken and passed the Advanced Competency Exam (vs. the Core Competency Exam) will have to study and sit for the lower level exam. Even though it is theoretically less difficult, one cannot assume they do not need to study or that it is an easier exam. Test availability is again an issue. LLLT Licensing Exam: LLLT licensing exams are offered in February and July each year. Those currently enrolled in the practice area curriculum will complete the curriculum on December 11, 2020 – which means they have to pay for and apply for the exam before beginning FL3 to avoid late fees (and pay FL3 tuition and exam fees almost simultaneously). The deadlines to apply for the exams are as follows: Public comments in opposition to sunsetting of LLLT license 103 of 135 Timeline to Complete LLLT Licensing Examination Applications First Late Filing Failed Accepted Deadline Deadline with Previous $150 late fee LLLT Exam Deadline With No Late Fee Summer February 1 March 5 April 5 May 5 Exam Winter Exam September 1 October 5 November 5 October 5 If a candidate does not pass the February 2020 exam, the first exam date available to current practice area students, is taking the July 2021 exam even a viable option? How would one take the July 2021 exam and be licensed by the end of the month, considering: · Exam grading and opportunity to challenge by the candidate · Character and Fitness Review · Criminal History Record Check · Proof of Malpractice Insurance · Proof of IOLTA No lawyer is expected to pass the bar exam with only one opportunity, nor has this ever been the case for the LLLTs. APR 28, Reg. 8(e): “An applicant who passes the practice area examination but fails the professional responsibility examination or vice versa may retake the failed exam at the next two administrations of the exam. The passing score shall be valid for one year from the date the applicant is notified of the exam results. If the applicant does not pass the failed exam within one year of such notification, the applicant shall be required to retake the exam he or she passed.” 3,000 Hours: Candidates in the pipeline have relied on APR 28, Regulation 9, which provides a candidate for licensure forty (40) months after passing the exam to get licensed. Most students are not in the position to complete the RIGOROUS education requirements and obtain all of their 3,000 hours simultaneously. 3,000 hours equals approximately eighteen-months of full-time employment. Most candidates do not receive credit from a supervising attorney on an hour-for-hour basis, as much time spent in a law office by a non-lawyer cannot be classified as “work that requires knowledge of legal concepts and is customarily, but not necessarily, performed by a lawyer.” As of June 5, 2020, the date of the Court’s letter, the court provides 60 weeks and 1 day to attain licensing: Candidates who begin working on their hours as of the dates of the Court’s letter = 60 weeks to obtain 3,000 hours or 50 hours/week Candidates who pass the July 2020 exam (assuming grade by Aug. 1) = 52 weeks to obtain 3,000 hours or 58 hours/week (although there will not be an exam due to the Court’s order on Admission by Diploma, 3,000 hours will still have to be worked) Candidates who pass the January 2021 exam (assuming grade by Feb. 1) = 25.7 weeks to obtain 3,000 hours or 117 hours/week Candidates who pass the July 2021 exam = zero weeks to obtain 3,000 hours Public comments in opposition to sunsetting of LLLT license 104 of 135 Professional -Technical Program Approval Process WAS HINGTON STATE BOARD FOR - COMMUNITY & TECHNICAL COLLEGES Effective 2 /10/12 ( Revised July 2013) All professional-technical degree and certificate programs must be approved by the State Board for Community and Technical Colleges (State Board) prior to program implementation (see excerpts from the State Board Policy Manual (Chapter 4, 4.40.00). As part of this responsibility, the State Board sets rules/procedures/guidelines, developed in cooperation with the college system, that provide for the approval of all proposed new professional/technical programs, curriculum modifications, and program title changes. Following are the guidelines for approval of professional-technical programs. DEFINITIONS A. A professional-technical program prepares students for employment in a specific industry. B. An associate degree program conventionally entails approximately two academic years of study, i.e., 90 credits, or two years of 45 credits each. WAC 250-61-050 defines “associate degree” as a lower division undergraduate degree that requires no fewer than 60 semester hours or 90 quarter hours. Some highly technical programs may require more than this to ensure that students have the necessary preparation to succeed. RCW 28B.50.140(12) states, “May grant to every student, upon graduation or completion of a course of study, a suitable diploma, degree, or certificate under the rules of the state board for community and technical colleges that are appropriate to their mission. The purposes of these diplomas, certificates, and degrees are to lead individuals directly to employment in a specific occupation or prepare individuals for a bachelor's degree or beyond. Technical colleges may only offer transfer degrees that prepare students for bachelor's degrees in professional fields, subject to rules adopted by the college board.” RCW 28B.50.215 states, “Technical colleges may, under the rules of the state board for community and technical colleges offer all specific academic support courses that may be at a transfer level that are required of all students to earn a particular degree or certificate. This shall not be interpreted to mean that their mission may be expanded to include transfer preparation, nor does it preclude technical colleges from voluntarily and cooperatively using available community college courses as components of technical college programs.” C. An associate in applied science–transfer (AAS-T) degree is built upon the technical courses required for job preparation but also includes a college-level general education component, common in structure for all such degrees. Further, the general education courses for the degree are drawn from the same list as those taken by students completing the Direct Transfer Agreement (DTA) associate degree or the Associate in Science-Transfer (AS-T) degree. These degrees are consistent with the dual purpose of transfer and preparation for direct employment. SBCTC Program Approval Process Guidelines – Revised July 2013 1 Public comments in opposition to sunsetting of LLLT license 105 of 135 The general education component of the transferable technical degree is to be comprised of not less than 20 credits of courses generally accepted in transfer. These 20 credits must include as a minimum the following: 5 credits in Communication English Composition 5 credits in Quantitative Skills Any course from the generally accepted in transfer list with Intermediate Algebra as a prerequisite 10 credits in Science, Social Courses selected from the generally accepted in Science, or Humanities transfer list including a course meeting the human relations requirement. The 20 credit minimum is proposed in recognition of the difficulty that some technical programs would have in adding even more general education credits to their degree. Yet other technical degrees would go beyond the 20 credits minimum because the technical program may already include transferable courses including the introductory course in the technical field. D. A certificate is an award which may be made for completion of the competencies and requirements for an occupational program. Certificates less than 45 credit hours in length do not necessarily include related instruction. Certificates 45 credit hours or longer must include related instruction as a component. The requirement for related instruction can be found in Standard Two, section 2.C.9 of the Accreditation Standards from the Northwest Commission on Colleges and Universities (Home - NWCCU). E. A primary program is any prescribed program of studies 20 credits or greater of instruction leading to initial employment or improvement of occupational skills. A primary program may have options. F. A program option is a variant of a primary program. At least 50 percent of the option must be drawn from the technical core of the primary program curriculum. (If less than 50 percent of the curriculum is from the technical core of the primary program, the college must apply for a new primary program.) Options are inventoried as separate programs and listed under the umbrella of the primary program. G. An individualized education program is a program that offers unique opportunities for a few students, and is designed to meet the career goals of the individual student. The education is to be accomplished on an individual basis with the technical portion of the program occurring in a work environment as contracted instruction or a cooperative arrangement. Degrees or certificates are issued for these programs. The total state completions in one occupation should not exceed probable job opportunities, but no more than four students should be enrolled at any point in time. APPROVAL CRITERIA AND PROCESS A. Programs of Less than 20 Credits. No formal approval is required, but short-term certificates must be registered with the State Board office. Colleges will submit to the State Board staff, at a minimum, the program title, CIP and EPC codes, program description or learning outcomes, course listing, and number of credits. SBCTC Program Approval Process Guidelines – Revised July 2013 2 Public comments in opposition to sunsetting of LLLT license 106 of 135 B. Programs 20 Credits or Greater. After the State Board staff endorses the “Professional-Technical Program Approval Request” (form PAR) for a new primary program, the college will submit any additional documentation required for final approval within six months. The State Board staff will notify the college within two weeks of receipt of the documentation as to any additional documentation that will be required before final approval is granted. Once final approval is granted, the program will be recorded on the college’s inventory of approved vocational programs. C. AAS-T Degree Programs. If a professional-technical associate degree program is already approved, the college need submit only the title of the approved professional-technical degree for which the AAS-T degree will be offered, the appropriate CIP and EPC codes, and a program/curriculum guide (list by course number, course title, credits per course, and total credits). If a professional-technical degree is not already approved, the college must submit appropriate documentation to support the addition of a primary or option. D. Sequence of Actions 1. A college determines to seek approval for a new professional-technical program. Collaboration between colleges contributes to informed program decision-making, which benefits the state as well as the local community. Colleges should work collaboratively before submitting a request for a new program to the State Board office, avoiding overly competitive or adversarial approaches to new program startups. The proposing college will provide evidence of collaboration with those colleges that have programs that are the same or similar to that which is being proposed. Some of the questions that need be answered when proposing a new program include: • Who are potential regional and statewide colleges (those with similar programs) that might be impacted by this program start-up? (You may contact the State Board for a list of similar currently-approved programs.) • How might start-up of this program at your college impact those programs (including, but not limited to, student base, employment opportunities, clinical space, and work-based learning sites)? • Does the program prepare graduates to obtain living wage employment? • Does the program require approvals/accreditations/certifications external to the State Board (e.g. Nursing Commission - See Page 6-J)? 2. In the case of a new primary program: a. The college submits a “Professional-Technical Program Approval Request” (form PAR) to the State Board office, along with documentation described on that form. b. The State Board staff will notify all community and technical colleges concerning the PAR via e-mail. A community or technical college opposing a PAR must provide written/e-mail notification of such opposition and rationale to the initiating college and the State Board office within three calendar weeks of the date notification that was e-mailed from the State Board office. Objections will be discussed between the chief instructional officers of the initiating and objecting colleges before they are forwarded to the State Board office. c. If a college objects: SBCTC Program Approval Process Guidelines – Revised July 2013 3 Public comments in opposition to sunsetting of LLLT license 107 of 135 (1) The objecting college(s) must provide evidence of attempts to collaborate. They must also provide evidence of how the proposed program will negatively impact existing program, including, but not limited to, student base, employment opportunities, clinical space, and work-based learning sites. In the case of programs offered via distance education, school(s) opposing the offering must thoroughly explain the negative impacts expected if the program is approved; i.e., unnecessary duplication or unfair competition. (2) The colleges will attempt to resolve the opposition. If agreement cannot be reached, the opposing college(s) must submit documentation that shows evidence of harm and unsuccessful attempts to collaborate to the State Board office within three calendar weeks of the PAR e-mail notification to the system. (3) Within 14 working days the State Board staff will assemble an advisory panel that may include education representatives, other workforce education directors, and other experts in the field, if they are reasonably available. This panel will recommend to the Executive Director of the State Board whether to sustain or over-rule the opposition to the PAR. The results of the decision of the Executive Director of the State Board will be final; therefore, it is imperative that dissenting rationale be well thought out and documented appropriately. Within seven working days after the advisory panel has met, the State Board staff will advise the originating community or technical college whether the proposed program has been endorsed or rejected. If opposed, the reasons for rejection will be explained. d. After the State Board staff endorses a PAR, the initiating community or technical college must submit to the State Board office any additional/final documentation within six months. Once all documentation is received and approved, the program will be entered on the college’s inventory of approved vocational programs. If final documentation needed to complete the approval is not received within the six-month period, the request will lapse, and reactivation will require the initiation of a new PAR. The six-month limitation may be waived in relation to the capital budget request or other circumstances that are beyond the control of the initiating district. 3. In the case of a new option or contract program the documentation required for approval of an option is the same as that for a primary program. The process differs in that the PAR is not sent to the colleges for the three-week comment period. 4. Courses must be offered and students enrolled in a program within one year of the date of approval. The State Board staff may grant an extension for cause; e.g., capital construction delays. 5. Following approval by the State Board office, a college may advertise, offer, or conduct professional-technical programs. A degree, certificate, or diploma recognizing successful completion of the program or prescribed course of study covered by this policy shall be awarded students who satisfy program requirements. Degree, certificate, or diploma programs shall meet all requirements of the State Board for Community and Technical Colleges. 6. The State Board staff will distribute a quarterly report of programs approved or modified during the preceding quarter to all community and technical colleges within the system. Once a program is formally approved and listed on the quarterly report, it will continue to be approved SBCTC Program Approval Process Guidelines – Revised July 2013 4 Public comments in opposition to sunsetting of LLLT license 108 of 135 as long as it is not “substantively” changed in such a way as to cause it to lose its original content or context. E. Collaborative Programs. When a college, without approval for a professional-technical program, wishes to collaborate with another college that does have approval, the college requesting the collaboration will send to the State Board office a signed memorandum of understanding between the colleges providing the details of the partnership. The program will be added to the requesting college’s inventory under a separate category titled Collaborative Programs. A unique EPC will be issued for collaborative programs. F. State Funded Contract Programs. There are four types of contracts under which a college may offer courses—regular, supplemental, shared funding, and international student (see Chapter 4, Appendix J and Chapter 5, Section 5.90.40 of the State Board Policy Manual). Contracted programs with Department of Corrections, Job Skills Program, military, private industry, or others 20 credits or greater shall be submitted to the State Board office using normal approval procedures described in section D.3 above. G. Individualized Education Program Specialty Approval. Each college shall submit to the State Board office a form IEP for each individual enrolled in an individualized education program prior to beginning of instruction. The approval will expire for each individual at the conclusion of that individual’s training or separation from the program. Each community and technical college using work-based learning processes shall have on file contracts as outlined in the Policy Manual (Chapter 4, Appendix E) and a detailed program for each student. If an employer-employee relationship exists, each student enrolled must be paid by the employer at the minimum wage or greater. Internships or other employment-based training situations are treated on an individual basis by each campus, but in no case will these situations result in displacement of employed workers. H. Program Curriculum Modifications and Title Changes. Any change to program title or curriculum modifications which result in a change to total credits must be approved by the State Board staff prior to the college offering the modified program. The college must submit an email of request and include a copy of the revised program/curriculum guide. A program modification which increases a program from a certificate to a degree requires a new program approval request as a primary or option. I. Inactive and Intermittent Programs 1. Inactive Programs. Approved programs or options that become inactive for any reason (i.e., budgetary, job needs fulfilled, housekeeping, start-up delayed, etc.) may be placed in the inactive category on the program inventory by campus request made in writing to the State Board office. The purpose of this category is to allow a campus ample time to study the continued need or allow some time for program modification and facility, equipment, or instructor acquisition. Upon request, State Board staff is available to assist colleges with a program viability analysis by conducting an onsite program review with a team that may include other workforce education SBCTC Program Approval Process Guidelines – Revised July 2013 5 Public comments in opposition to sunsetting of LLLT license 109 of 135 directors, industry representatives, and others deemed appropriate. The format used in this process can be found in Appendix B. The maximum time that a program may remain in an inactive status is three years. If a program is not reinstated to active status during the three-year period, it will be removed from the respective college’s inventory. To reinstate a program from inactive to active status, the campus must make the request on form REIN and include all information requested on the form. 2. Intermittent Programs. Approved programs or options that are conducted on an intermittent basis (i.e., every other quarter, once every two years, etc.) are listed on the program inventory in a separate category. This listing alerts the State Board office of possible voids in enrollment information, as well as notification to prospective students. A program may be placed in this category by written request of the campus to the State Board office. J. Nursing Programs. In the case of new Nursing program the documentation required for approval is the same for either a new primary or option program (see 2-D and 3). The process differs in that prior to approval and implementation of the program the college must submit to the State Board office the following documentation: a. The submitted Program Approval Request (PAR) must include assurances of clinical sites. b. Before final approval of the program, the college must receive approval from the Nursing Commission. A copy of the Nursing Commission approval letter must be submitted to the State Board. PROCESS FOR TERMINATION OF PROGRAMS A community or technical college district may, at its own discretion, terminate a program and shall notify the State Board office of such action within six weeks of the time that the program is terminated. Once a program is terminated, the State Board office will maintain as active for a maximum of three years the coding associated with that program. If a college desires assistance in conducting a program analysis, the State Board staff will assemble an external team of experts to conduct the analysis, and will provide recommendations to the requesting college (see Appendix B). List of Professional-Technical Program Approval Forms: ADV – Professional-Technical Advisory/Planning Committee IEP – Professional-Technical Individualized Education Program Approval PAR – Program Approval Request REIN – Request for Inactive Program/Option Reinstatement APPENDIX A – BACKGROUND RCW 28B.50.090, College Board – Powers and Duties, states the following: SBCTC Program Approval Process Guidelines – Revised July 2013 6 Public comments in opposition to sunsetting of LLLT license 110 of 135 The college board shall have general supervision and control over the state system of community and technical colleges. In addition to the other powers and duties imposed upon the college board by this chapter, the college board shall be charged with the following powers, duties and responsibilities: (3) Ensure, through the full use of its authority: (a) That each college district, in coordination with colleges, within a regional area, shall offer thoroughly comprehensive educational, training, and service programs to meet the needs of both the communities and students served by combining high standards of excellence in academic transfer courses; realistic and practical courses in occupational education, both graded and ungraded; and community services of an educational, cultural, and recreational nature; and adult education, including basic skills and general, family, and workforce literacy programs and services; (7) Establish minimum standards to govern the operation of the community and technical colleges with respect to: (a) Qualifications and credentials of instructional and key administrative personnel, except as otherwise provided in the state plan for vocational education. (b) Internal budgeting, accounting, auditing, and financial procedures as necessary to supplement the general requirements prescribed pursuant to chapter 43.88 RCW. (c) The content of the curriculums and other educational and training programs, and the requirement for degrees and certificate awarded by the colleges. The State Board Policy Manual, Chapter 4, section 4.20.00, Degree Requirements, states in part: The content of the curricula and other educational and training programs (see RCW 28B.50.090(7)(c)) and the requirements for degrees, certificates, and high school diplomas awarded by the state’s community and technical colleges must follow guidelines established by the State Board . Section 4.40.00, Professional-Technical Programs, states in part: All professional-technical degree and certificate programs must be approved by the State Board prior to course or program implementation (see RCW 28B.50.090(7)(c)). As part of this responsibility, the State Board: 1. Sets rules/procedures/guidelines, developed in cooperation with the college system, that provide for the approval of all proposed new professional-technical programs, curriculum modifications and program title changes. 2. Requires that colleges certify professional-technical staff and faculty as provided by WAC 13116- 070 through WAC 131-16-095. Section 4.40.20, Advisory Committees for Professional-Technical Programs, describes the requirement for each professional-technical program to have an industry advisory committee. APPENDIX B – PROGRAM VIABILITY ANALYSIS SBCTC Program Approval Process Guidelines – Revised July 2013 7 Public comments in opposition to sunsetting of LLLT license 111 of 135 All programs should be continually reviewed for their effectiveness in meeting the training needs of industry, as well as in fulfilling the mission of the college. Programs failing to meet these needs should be subject to review for viability. The outcome of the review may involve program revision or elimination. Many factors are considered during this process: 1. Is enrollment adequate? Each program has an established average enrollment number that is determined by the college, in collaboration with the faculty, program director, and advisory committee, following analysis of the program curriculum needs: facility and equipment availability, safety factors, and the optimal number of students that the instructor(s) can successfully manage at one time. Is this established average enrollment figure being met? The established average enrollment is listed on the State Board’s inventory of approved professional-technical programs for the college as “maximum enrollment.” Enrollment is determined to be inadequate when the program’s average enrollment is 75 percent or less of the established average enrollment figure. A review of the program should be triggered at any point in time that the enrollment dips below the 75 percent standard. During the review, up to three years of enrollment figures may be analyzed. 2. Does the program meet industry standards? Are the industry-validated competencies being successfully met by program graduates? If industry certification/formal recognition exists, has the program achieved said certification/formal recognition? 3. Are there sufficient employment opportunities for program graduates, and are graduates obtaining employment in the field? 4. Do entry-level wages exceed minimum wage? 5. Are there career advancement opportunities available for those graduates who perform successfully on the job? 6. Is the program advisory committee actively involved and supportive of the program? 7. Is the program cost-effective/economically supportable? 8. Other factors that may be determined during the process that may impact program viability. While enrollment is a key factor considered in the review process, all factors listed above are important considerations and any of them could be a determinant for program viability even though adequate enrollment may exist. SBCTC Program Approval Process Guidelines – Revised July 2013 8 Public comments in opposition to sunsetting of LLLT license 112 of 135 GR 9 COVER SHEET Suggested Amendments to ADMISSION AND PRACTICE RULES RULE 3 – APPLICANTS FOR ADMISSION TO PRACTICE LAW Submitted by the Limited License Legal Technician Board A. Name of Proponent: Limited License Legal Technician (LLLT) Board Staff Liaison/Contact: Renata de Carvalho Garcia, Innovative Licensing Programs Manager Washington State Bar Association (WSBA) 1325 Fourth Avenue, Suite 600 Seattle, WA 98101-2539 (Phone: 206-733-5912) B. Spokesperson: Stephen R. Crossland Chair of the LLLT Board P.O. Box 566 Cashmere, WA 98815 (Phone: 509-782-4418) C. Purpose: The suggested amendments to APR 3(e)(3) seek to remove a redundancy and inconsistency regarding the requirement for a paralegal certification examination in order to qualify to sit for the Limited License Legal Technician (LLLT) examination. Currently, all LLLT candidates are required by APR 3(e)(3) to pass the Paralegal Core Competency Exam (PCCE), an entry level paralegal exam administered by the National Federation of Paralegal Associations. Applicants seeking a limited time waiver under APR 28 Regulation 4 are required to pass at least one of three LLLT Board approved national paralegal certification examinations [the Certified Paralegal (CP) Exam conducted by the National Association of Legal Assistants (NALA), the Paralegal GR 9 Cover Sheet - Suggested Amendments to APR 3(e)(3) Page 1 Public comments in opposition to sunsetting of LLLT license 113 of 135 Advanced Competency Exam (PACE) conducted by the National Federation of Paralegal Associations (NFPA), and the Professional Paralegal (PP) Exam conducted by the Association for Legal Professionals (NALS)]. The three Board approved national paralegal certification examinations required for the limited time waiver are either equivalent or more advanced exams compared to the PCCE. As written, a LLLT candidate who has passed one of the three equivalent or more advanced Board approved national paralegal certification examinations, must also pass the entry level paralegal examination (PCCE) in order to be eligible to sit for the LLLT exam. For a candidate to sit for the LLLT exam, the current rule requires a LLLT candidate with a waiver (having already passed a more advanced paralegal exam) to take the less advanced and redundant PCCE exam. These suggested amendments provide consistency by imposing equivalent testing requirement for all candidates. Furthermore, removing specific reference to the PCCE in APR 3(e)(3) will enable the LLLT Board to adjust the list of LLLT Board approved paralegal certification examinations in the future as needed. Finally, the suggested amendments seek to eliminate the requirement for “original” proof of passing. The LLLT Board finds that electronic submission of proof of passage is sufficient to confirm passing. Electronic submission also streamlines workflow for staff and simplifies the application process for applicants. D. Hearing : A hearing is not requested. GR 9 Cover Sheet - Suggested Amendments to APR 3(e)(3) Page 2 Public comments in opposition to sunsetting of LLLT license 114 of 135 E. Expedited Consideration : Expedited consideration is not requested. F. Supporting Materials: Suggested Rule Amendments to APR 3(e)(3). GR 9 Cover Sheet - Suggested Amendments to APR 3(e)(3) Page 3 Public comments in opposition to sunsetting of LLLT license 115 of 135 SUGGESTED AMENDMENTS TO ADMISSION AND PRACTICE RULES RULE 3 – APPLICANTS FOR ADMISSION TO THE PRACTICE OF LAW 1 2 RULE 3. APPLICANTS FOR ADMISSION TO PRACTICE LAW 3 4 (a) – (d) Unchanged. 5 (e) Qualification for Limited License Legal Technician (LLLT) examination. To qualify to sit for the LLLT examination, a person must; 6 (1) – (2) Unchanged. 7 (3) present original proof of passing the Paralegal Core Competency Exam administered 8 by the National Federation of Paralegal Associations a LLLT Board approved paralegal 9 certification examination. 10 (f) – (i) Unchanged. 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Suggested Amendments to APR 3(e)(3) PublicPage 1 of comments 1 in opposition to sunsetting of LLLT license 116 of 135 WASHINGfON STATE BARASSOOATION MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING Relationships The Washington State Access to Justice Board (the "ATJ Board"), an autonomous board that reports annually to the Washington State Supreme Court and the Washington State Bar Association ("WSBA") Board of Governors, was established in 1994 and reauthorized by an order of the Supreme Court, dated November 2, 2000 (the "Order"). The Order charges the ATJ Board with responsibility to assure high quality access for low and moderate income residents and others in Washington State who suffer disparate access barriers to the civil justice system. To that end, the Order provides that the ATJ Board shall work to: • Establish, coordinate and oversee a statewide, integrated, non-duplicative, civil legal services delivery system that is responsive to the needs of poor, vulnerable and moderate means individuals; • Establish and evaluate the performance and effectiveness of the civil legal services delivery system against an objective set of standards and criteria; • Promote adequate levels of public, private and volunteer support for Washington State's civil equal justice network; • Serve as an effective clearinghouse and mechanism for communication and information dissemination; • Promote, develop and implement policy initiatives and criteria which enhance the availability of resources for essential civil equal justice activities; • Develop and implement new programs and innovative measures designed to expand access to justice in Washington State; • Promote jurisprudential understanding of the law relating to the fundamental right of individuals to secure meaningful access to the civil justice system; • Promote widespread understanding of civil equal justice among the members of the public through public legal education; Working Together to Champion Justice 1 PublicWashington comments State Bar in Association•opposition 2101 to Fourth sunsetting Avenue,# 400/Seattle,of LLLT WAlicense 98121-2330 •206-727-8200/ fax: 206-727-8319117 of 135 • Promote the responsiveness of the civil justice system to the needs of those who suffer disparate treatment or disproportionate access barriers: and • Address existing and proposed laws, rules and regulations that may adversely affect meaningful access to the civil justice system The Order provides that the A TJ Board shall be administered by the WSBA, and specifically states that the ATJ Board shall be funded and staffed by the WSBA, which shall have authority to establish a budget and approve expenditures. Pursuant to this Memorandum of Understanding, the ATJ Board and the WSBA agree to the following understandings with respect to the relationships between the parties under the Order: Budget Considerations The parties agree that the A TJ Board will participaie in tl1e development of that portion of the WSBA annual budget that affects the operations of the ATJ Board. Such participation shall include: (a) The ATJ Board's submission to the WSBA Department of Finance and Administration of a proposed budget in the same format used by the WSBA's own programs, together with such back up information necessary tcJ c:xplain the prop ised b•ur!get, 'lf as requested in preliminary budget development. The b1.cdgd submission ,·ill iC:e:•.tify specifo; ,)rje,.:tive,, and describe how progress will be evaluated; and (b) The meaningful and timdy opportunity for the A TJ Board to participate in WSBA's budget discussions and in making budget ,,djustments. To the extent that the ATJ Board deems it necessary to request supplemental funding from the WSBA within a budget cycle, the ATJ Board will fi:,llow the above steps: provided, that budget changes ofless than 10% in a line item do not require prior approval assuming that the overall budget remains constant. To the extent that the ATJ Board seeks funding from outside sources, it shall do so in collaboration with the WSBA. WSBA shall be the contracting and grant agent for all outside funding received by the WSBA or the Washington State Bar Foundation and eannarked for the ATJ Board. Either the WSBA or the Washington State Bar Foundation, as appropriate, shall be responsible for reporting on the use of such funds to the outside funding source. Management of the funds may be delegated to the ATJ Board. Such funds shall only be used for the purp(sse(s) for which they were solicited, and subject to any conditions imposed by the grantor or donor. Staffing Considerations The WSBA shall provide the ATJ Board with adequate staff to fulfill its mission. A manager-level employee with knowledge of civil access to justice issues shall be dedicated to supporting and coordinating the work of the ATJ Board with the under,tanding that this employee may be assigned to perform other responsibilities as a WSBA staff member. The WSBA shall also provide the A TJ Board with such other full or part-time staff as may be necessary to enable the ATJ Board to perform its Working Together w Cha,mpion]ustice 2 PublicWashington comments State Bar in rusociatlonopposition •2101 to Fourth sunsetting A,mue, # 400/Seattle,of LLLT WAlicense 98Ul-2330 • 206-727-8200/ fax: 206-727-8319118 of 135 functions as set forth in the Order. Appropriate staffing levels shall be determined annually in the budget process. Staffing levels shall be monitored in good faith by both the WSBA and A TJ Board to assure that staff use complies with the parameters established in the budget. Any modifications to staffing allocations or duties shall only be made after mutual consultation between WSBA and the ATJ Board. The ATJ Board understands that WSBA Personnel Guidelines shall apply in hiring, job classification, salary, and conditions of employment for all WSBA employees and that the WSBA Executive Director has sole authority to employ and compensate all WSBA employees. The WSBA Executive Director has sole authority to select or terminate any WSBA employee, although the ATJ Board shall have the opportunity to participate in the selection or termination of the ATJ manager. The formal job descriptions of staff assigned to work with the ATJ Board shall be available to the ATJ Board, and the A TJ Board shall have the opportunity to provide comments on those descriptions during the Annual Review process, or as necessitated by changes in functions, duties or personnel. The ATJ Board shall also have the opportunity to provide comments on the Annual Review of the ATJ manager and other WSBA staff supporting the ATJ Board. Other Matters The ATJ Board shall be accountable to the WSBA for proper fiscal management and for using WSBA resources to carry out the mission as specified in the Order. In the event that an issue arises that is not addressed in the Order or this Memorandum of Understanding, the WSBA and ATJ Board will work collaboratively to resolve the issue. Washington State Bar Association WashinJl!on State Access to Justice Board By:&,2t-;I/hl~,W~It' (J_ # S. Brooke Taylor WSBA President Date:~ "111_ ~JJtdd_ ~~Michel; WSBA Executive Director Date: i/-Z,(-tJ6 Working Together to Champion Justice 3 PublicWashington comments State Bar in Associationopposition •2101 to Fourth sunsetting Avenue, #400/Seattle, of LLLT WAlicense 98121-2330 •206-727-8200/ fax: 206-727-8319119 of 135 From: OFFICE RECEPTIONIST, CLERK To: Carlson, Susan; Lennon, Erin Subject: FW: Letter from Pro Bono Council to Chief Justice Stephens Date: Monday, July 20, 2020 8:09:08 AM Attachments: 2020.07.17 To Washington Supreme Court re LLLT Program.pdf This went to Judy. From: Michael Terasaki [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Friday, July 17, 2020 5:30 PM To: Vandervort, Judy Dear Ms. Vandervort, Please find enclosed a letter from the Pro Bono Council to Chief Justice Stephens. Thank you for your attention to this matter, Michael Michael Terasaki Washington Pro Bono Council Manager [email protected] (425) 495-0132 Public comments in opposition to sunsetting of LLLT license 120 of 135 July 17, 2020 Chief Justice Debra L. Stephens Washington Supreme Court PO Box 40929 Olympia, WA 98504-0929 [email protected]; [email protected] Re: Decision to End the LLLT Program Dear Chief Justice Stephens: MEMBERS The Pro Bono Council is shocked and disappointed by the Court’s recent ELOISE BARSHES, CO-CHAIR ELIZABETH FITZGEARLD, CO-CHAIR termination of the Limited License Legal Technician (LLLT) program. As LORI BASHOR-SARANCIK further explained below, LLLTs have proven to be a tremendous asset to legal QUINN DALAN aid organizations and the sudden “sunsetting” of the LLLT program is a ANNE DALY substantial step backwards in access to justice for Washington State. LAURIE DAVENPORT CHRIS GRAVES The Pro Bono Council is a convening body representing the sixteen individual MICHAEL HEATHERLY Volunteer Lawyer Programs (VLPs) in Washington. VLPs provide free, high JERRY KRÖON VEANEY MARTINEZ quality, efficient, and innovative civil legal assistance to low-income people SHAUNA ROGERS MCCLAIN through the recruitment, training, supervision, and support of volunteer legal RACHAEL LUNDMARK professionals. Each VLP coordinates local attorneys and other volunteers – BARB OTTE including LLLTs – to provide pro bono help at legal clinics and through other GAIL SMITH service delivery models. Last year in 2019, VLPs delivered 35,000 hours of JOANNE SPRAGUE client services. This included more than 17,000 clients assisted through EVA WESCOTT CATHERINE BROWN consultation or brief services and more than 3,700 clients assisted through direct representation. Thousands of these hours of service were in the family law areas that LLLTs can assist with. CONTACT The Pro Bono Council is committed to increasing access to justice for as MICHAEL TERASAKI many low-income Washingtonians as possible. Given that low-income PRO BONO COUNCIL MANAGER Washingtonians are disproportionately people of color and in light of the (425) 495-0132 1 [email protected] Court’s recent public commitments to end systemic injustices based on race , we were surprised by the Court’s sudden announcement that Washington would no longer support the LLLT program. LLLTs expand critical access to justice in rural communities where few lawyers reside. In addition to the commercial legal services many LLLTs provide their underserved communities, LLLTs volunteer at a very high rate: of the 40 licensed LLLTs, approximately 10 (25%) have volunteered at VLPs. Despite the low total number of licensed LLLTs, their presence has been ...... strong in legal aid organizations, and in some counties all licensed LLLTs 1 Washington Supreme Court Letter to Members of the Judiciary and the Legal Community, June 4, 2020, http://www.courts.wa.gov/content/publicUpload/Supreme%20Court%20News/Judiciary%20Legal%20Community %20SIGNED%20060420.pdf?fbclid=IwAR29z3jE0r7-dzyw04fz-gmR7-lxaqS3ImXFheaa6QqhmcEsV_46rCEtpdc Public comments in opposition to sunsetting of LLLT license 121 of1 135 residing in that county currently volunteer. LLLT training programs only recently expanded to online instruction and we anticipated an accompanying increase in LLLT volunteers as the program grows both in membership and in approved practice areas. Volunteer lawyer programs now stand to lose out on hundreds of valuable LLLT volunteers in upcoming years, and there is no expectation that the volunteer rate of attorneys will suddenly jump to 25%. While the extension of certain LLLT program completion timelines is heartening, we implore the Court to ensure every single LLLT candidate has a full opportunity to complete their licensure. Particularly considering the Court’s recent grant of “diploma privilege” to many law school students in acknowledgment of “extraordinary barriers” resulting from COVID-192, it would not be unreasonable to waive many of the LLLT examination requirements and waive many of the LLLT experience requirements (for which there are no corresponding requirements for attorney bar admission). Additionally, we find the lack of public notice and comment leading up to the Court’s decision to terminate the LLLT program troubling, and we are not the only ones to have noted this lack of transparency in recent months.3 The number of stakeholders when it comes to LLLT licensure has grown significantly since the program’s inception and, while not immediate, the loss in access to justice resulting from this “sunsetting” will ripple across the legal aid community and ultimately result in reduced capacity for legal services for those who need it most. Thus, we respectfully request the Supreme Court protect the benefits that civil legal aid is already reaping from the LLLT program and secure future access to justice for those most in need by: 1. Ensuring every current LLLT candidate has a meaningful opportunity to acquire a limited license to practice, and 2. Addressing the access to justice gap that will inevitably result from the loss of future LLLTs. We suggest extending or waiving any and all deadlines imposed on LLLT candidates for licensure by at least two years after the end of the COVID-19 emergency to ensure everyone currently enrolled can have a meaningful opportunity to complete their program. LLLTs have proven to be reliable volunteers and important contributors to civil legal aid. As the Court appears determined to discontinue licensure of new LLLTs, it is incumbent on the Court to develop another solution to narrow the justice gap LLLTs helped to close. To that end, the Pro Bono Council stands ready to assist, support, or partner with the Court to expand pathways for people interested in providing legal services, because we are confident that broader 2 Order Granting Diploma Privilege and Temporarily Modifying Admission & Practice Rules, June 12, 2020, http://www.courts.wa.gov/content/publicUpload/Supreme%20Court%20Orders/Order%20Granting%20Diploma%2 0Privilege%20061220.pdf 3 Washington’s Supreme Court Should do all its Business in the Sunshine, Seattle Times, June 26, 2020, https://www.seattletimes.com/opinion/washingtons-supreme-court-should-do-all-its-business-in-the-sunshine/ Public comments in opposition to sunsetting of LLLT license 122 of2 135 legal licensure, at any level, furthers the proper goal of both the Supreme Court and the Pro Bono Council of access to justice for all. Thank you for your attention to our concern. Please contact Pro Bono Council Manager, Michael Terasaki should you have additional questions about this letter. Sincerely, Michael Terasaki Pro Bono Council Manager [email protected] (425) 495-0132 Public comments in opposition to sunsetting of LLLT license 123 of3 135 August 19, 2020 The Honorable Debra Stephens 415 12th Ave SW PO Box 40929 Olympia, WA 98504-0929 Sent via email: [email protected] MEMBERS Francis Adewale Re: LLLT Esperanza Borboa Judge Laura T. Bradley Dear Chief Justice Stephens: Hon. Frederick P. Corbit This is in response to the Court’s June 5, 2020 letter where the Court Hon. David S. Keenan announced that it was sunsetting the LLLT program. The Access to Justice Lindy Laurence Board is requesting the Court to consider the following. Michelle Lucas First, the Access to Justice Board believes that the Court should have had an Salvador A. Mungia, Chair open comment period to all stakeholders before making a decision to sunset Mirya Muñoz-Roach the program. It appears to the community that the Court took this major action without providing notice to all stakeholders that it was going to Terry J. Price consider the issue and without giving all stakeholders the opportunity to be heard. Accordingly, the ATJ Board is requesting that the Court reverse or STAFF suspend its decision to sunset the LLLT program to allow all stakeholders an opportunity to weigh in on this issue. Diana Singleton Equity and Justice Manager (206) 727-8205 Second, the Access to Justice Board is requesting the Court to fully examine [email protected] the costs and benefits of the LLLT program before making its decision. Perhaps the Court has already done this. However, if the Court has performed such an analysis then its analysis was not shared with the legal community or the community at large. The Board requests that whatever decisions the Court reaches that it explain its decision so that all interested parties can understand why the decision was reached. THE ALLIANCE for Equal Justice Third, the ATJ Board is concerned that the Court is apparently terminating MEMBER the program by way of a letter and not by amending or revoking the court rules authorizing the LLLT program. We request the Court to follow the court rules for amending or revoking various rules such as APR 28. This process would obviously allow the notice and opportunity to be heard by all stakeholders. We look forward to hearing from the Court. Very truly yours, Salvador Mungia, Chair Access to Justice Board Access to Justice Board, 1325 Fourth Avenue – Suite 600, Seattle, WA 98101-2539 • Phone: 206 727-8200, Fax: 206 727-8310 www.wsba.org/atj • allianceforequaljustice.org Established by the Washington Supreme Court • Administered by the Washington State Bar Association Public comments in opposition to sunsetting of LLLT license 124 of 135 Page 2 Cc: Terra Nevitt, Interim Executive Director, Washington State Bar Association Access to Justice Board, 1325 Fourth Avenue – Suite 600, Seattle, WA 98101-2539 • Phone: 206 727-8200, Fax: 206 727-8310 www.wsba.org/atj Established by The Washington Supreme Court • Administered by the Washington State Bar Association Public comments in opposition to sunsetting of LLLT license 125 of 135 Supreme Court State of Washington Debra L. Stephens Chief Justice Temple of Justice Olympia, Washington 98504-0929 Dear Supreme Court of the State of Washington, We write to you on behalf of the Low Bono Section of the Washington State Bar Association asking that you reconsider your recent vote to sunset the Washington Limited Legal License Technician license. We are shocked by the rushed, secretive, and minimally informed nature of this decision - a decision sure to have large rippling impacts for citizens of Washington, attorneys, LLLTs, other legal professionals, and communities nationwide. We have many questions regarding your decision and its basis, and request an opportunity to be heard. We further request the Court spend more time considering such an impactful decision, and to reverse its decision to immediately sunset the LLLT license. First, we will walk thorough a procedural history of the LLLT license, paying special attention to the significant amount of time, energy, and thought that went into developing this innovative legal license. We will show a stark contrast between this community-wide effort to build the license versus the 3-4 hours that went into deciding to discontinue it. We will then review what we believe are the flawed criteria on which the decision was made and the issues we see regarding how the decision was made. Finally, we will conclude with a description of why our Section of the WSBA is so concerned with this decision. Procedural History of LLLT Program In 2003, The Washington Civil Legal Needs Study disclosed the gross underperformance of our legal system to provide access to justice. The Study reported that 85 percent of low-income people in Washington were not able to access or afford legal services for their ongoing legal issues.1 In 2012, after nine long years (a period that included the greatest financial recession of recent times) of discussing how to solve this problem, the Court approved APR 28 allowing for the licensing of LLLTS. As Justice Madsen pointed out in her dissenting letter on June 5, 2020, 2012 did not mark the end of the incredible effort needed to launch the license: “The creation of the LLLT was by no means the end of our labors. In many ways it was only the beginning. Since 2012, stakeholders have crafted and this court has approved the contours of the LLLT license: educational requirements, scope of practice, and governing ethical rules. E.g., APR 28; Order (July 12, 2013) (setting out educational requirements and scope of practice for LLLT, among other things); Order (Aug. 8, 2013) (establishing the admission and licensing requirements for LLLT applicants); Order (March 23, 2015) (adopting changes to Rules of 1 2003 Washington Civil Legal Needs Study Update; Washington State Supreme Court, p. 8 Public comments in opposition to sunsetting of LLLT license 126 of 135 Professional Conduct for Lawyers to coordinate those rules with the LLLT Rules of Professional Conduct); WASHINGTON LLLT EDUCATIONAL PROGRAM APPROVAL STANDARDS, WASHINGTON STATE BAR ASS’N (June 10, 2019).”2 Over the next two years, while the LLLT license was being further developed, the Court ordered the Civil Legal Needs Study be updated. In 2015, an updated report was released, in which it was found legal issues per household had nearly tripled from 3.3 in 2003 to 9.3 in 2014.3 The report otherwise showed little change in the ability of low income individuals to access legal services. In 2003, 85% of low-income individuals faced their legal problem alone and in 2014, 76% did not get help for their legal needs.4 Thus, while attorneys spent nearly a decade deciding on new avenues to create access to legal services, hundreds of thousands of Washingtonians continued to face their legal issues alone. In 2014, the first students entered the LLLT educational program. In 2015, the first LLLTs were licensed, with license fees beginning to go towards covering costs. Only five years have passed since the first LLLT was licensed, and yet the license has already been abandoned. How can such an innovative program be shut down in such early stages? We argue five years was not sufficient time for this program to take off and build support and confidence in our communities. The Court did not ask communities for feedback on the license. As one of the Justice Madsen clearly stated: “Throughout this rule-making process, we have heard from interested parties, students, legal professionals, and members of the public. The questions and comments from all sides have formed and shaped the LLLT from an ambitious plan into a concrete professional license. Make no mistake, LLLT is a new professional license.”5 The Court spent over a decade considering options and building the LLLT license with input from the community every step of the way, but completely abandoned the license after one meeting (which in large part discussed the expansion of the license) and without even notifying interested members and organizations that the decision was being considered. Why abandon a long-standing history of providing opportunity for public comment? Procedural Issues with Supreme Court’s Vote ABANDONED AFTER ONE MEETING The LLLT license was abandoned after a single meeting and without notice to or comment from interested parties. As Justice Madsen stated in her dissent: “What took over a decade of toil to create, this court erased in an afternoon. I passionately disagree with the court’s vote as well as the way in which it was carried out.”6 We echo Justice Madsen’s words and ask why the Court did not offer notice or a period for comment. When the Court considered ending the WSBA, it created a panel of professionals to evaluate that decision, provided ample notice to legal professionals, and provided multiple opportunities for stakeholders and the public to provide comment. 2 Washington State Supreme Court Justice Barbara Madsen, Dissent to Sunset of LLLT; June 5, 2020, p. 2 3 2015 Washington Civil Legal Needs Study Update; Washington State Supreme Court, p. 5 4 2015 Washington Civil Legal Needs Study Update; Washington State Supreme Court, p. 15 5 Washington State Supreme Court Justice Barbara Madsen, Dissent to Sunset of LLLT; June 5, 2020, p. 2 6 Washington State Supreme Court Justice Barbara Madsen, Dissent to Sunset of LLLT; June 5, 2020, p. 1 Public comments in opposition to sunsetting of LLLT license 127 of 135 ONLY CONSIDERED COSTS Why did the Court apparently only consider the costs to the bar? The cost to the WSBA is less than 1% of its entire budget. In its Year to Date April 2020 Financial Reports (unaudited), the WSBA shows a net profit of $2,293,991.79.7 Why is there such a concern about cutting less than 1% of the budget for an association that is profitable?. DID NOT MEASURE WHAT IS A REASONABLE TIME APR 28 states the LLLT board had a REASONABLE amount of time to make the LLLT license cost neutral to the bar association. We ask, by what metric has it been determined a reasonable amount of time has passed? We propose the only reasonable program that could be compared to the LLLT license to is the Limited Practice Officer license. This license was first developed in other states, and the Court adopted APR 12 in 1983. For the first 19 years, administration of the license was through the Administrative Office of the Court. Administration was transferred to the WSBA in July 2002. From 2008 to 2014, the LPO program was generated a profit for the WSBA (records prior to 2008 are not readily available). In 2015 (the year the first LLLTs were licensed), the LPO program began running at a deficit to the WSBA which continued to through 2019. 2020 results are not yet available. Unfortunately, the WSBA is not transparent as to how costs are allocated, and we cannot readily determine what systems in the WSBA may have changed to impact how costs are measured or defined. However, we ask the Court to further inquire into the LPO program’s sudden drop to a cost negative, as the LPO program is one of the few programs by which the WSBA and Supreme court could measure the success or reasonableness of the LLLT license’s development. Considering that cost to the WSBA seems to be the primary reason for sunsetting the LLLT license, we would like to see a thorough investigation into how the WSBA allocates costs amongst programs. ASSUMED REDUCTION IN COSTS Sunsetting the License was a decision made on a rather large assumption that it will reduce the cost of the LLLT program to the WSBA. Again, Justice Madsen stated this issue well: “While current LLLT license holders are “grandfathered in” and allowed to continue practicing, there has been no evaluation offered about the cost of this decision and whether there would be any appreciable change in the cost of administering the LLLT license. As a fiscal matter, the silence on this point speaks loudly, as does the lack of deliberation on other options to address concerns expressed by the Bar while maintaining this professional license and the valuable services it provides in the pursuit of access to justice.”8 How did the Court measure the cost savings of closing the pipeline for new LLLTs to be licensed? What will be the exact savings to the WSBA? What will be the direct costs of maintaining the currently licensed LLLTs? Low Bono Perspective 7 Washington State Bar Association Financial Reports, (Unaudited) Year to Date April 30, 2020 8 Washington State Supreme Court Justice Barbara Madsen, Dissent to Sunset of LLLT; June 5, 2020, p. 3 Public comments in opposition to sunsetting of LLLT license 128 of 135 The Low Bono Section (LBS) is the only WSBA section that focuses on moderate income clients. As a section, we are committed to serving this group of clients, many of whom would not otherwise receive any assistance for their legal issues. Because of our Section Members’ commitment to serving this underserved population, the LBS has embraced LLLTs. Many LBS members have worked closely with LLLTs, and several LLLTs belong to our Section and serve on the LBS executive committee (including our Chair-Elect). The Low Bono Section is committed to the principal of justice for all and to the pursuit of a law practice model that allows our members to charge rates moderate income families can afford. It is primarily for this reason we believe the LLLT program should be immediately reinstated. History has clearly shown that attorneys cannot – or will not – provide adequate services for low and moderate income families on their own. We cannot count on pro bono legal professionals to provide these services, and there are few other programs focused on moderate income individuals. The LBS has worked closely with the Moderate Means Program, which helps hundreds of moderate income applicants obtain legal help every year. This, however, is only a drop in the bucket of legal issues our state’s citizens face on their own every day without legal help. At a time when the demand for legal services will surely increase, we believe every avenue to provide services to this population should be explored and utilized. Attorneys who have worked with LLLTs understand the vital role LLLTs can play in decreasing the access to justice gap for these families. LLLTs working with attorneys not only saves clients money, but also allows attorneys to represent clients more efficiently. This should be the measure of a successful legal innovation, not the mere fact that the program has cost money to create. We encourage the Court to reconsider its decision, and indeed, not only to reinstate the LLLT program, but to expand it, simplify its scope, and reduce the number of hours necessary to qualify for the license. If these actions were taken, we are confident more applicants would be attracted to the program, and that it could become revenue neutral. Lastly, we would like to point out that we are approaching a disturbing situation in which the size of the state bar is going to shrink precipitously. One cause of this is the increasing number of current attorneys who will be retiring in the next few years. According to the WSBA, 44.5% of all active attorneys are over age 50.9 As these members of the baby boom generation leave the profession, the numbers coming up to replace them are much smaller. The other cause is law schools have decreased their class sizes, matriculating fewer young attorneys since the great recession. Seattle University School of Law has decreased its entering class size by almost a third over the last few years. All of this is occurring while the population of Washington State continues to grow. To meet this looming challenge, we need more legal professionals, both LLLTs and attorneys. Reducing the overall legal resources available to Washingtonians at this critical time is exactly the opposite of what we, the legal community, should be doing. Sincerely, Low Bono Section Executive Committee Washington State Bar Association 9 WSBA Demographics: https://www.wsba.org/docs/default-source/licensing/membership-info- data/countdemo_20190801.pdf?sfvrsn=ae6c3ef1_102 Public comments in opposition to sunsetting of LLLT license 129 of 135 KATHRYNE. BERGER Attorney ut Lall' 1504 Broadway Street Bellingham, WA 98225 (360) 671-7550 FAX (360) 7 13-0098 'lIWJE II/IJ I: ltli!O :rt)) 1 g on State June 17, 2020 ;:,upreme Court Washinglon State Supreme Court 415 12th Ave SW Olympia, WA 98501 Dear Justices: I believe that sunsetting the Limited License Legal Technician program is a grave error. I have been an attorney in private practice fo r over 30 years, done plenty of pro bono hours and worked with various legal aid programs. r have also served on the Disciplinary Board and am currently serving on the Character and Fitness Board. If we cannot have a civi l Gideon, having the Court keep the Limited License Legal Technician program is the next best thing. Legal services program cannot serve all their potential client population (those with O to 200% of poverty level income) let alone the working poor. Legal aid programs are by program funding Limitations not able to provide services to people of moderate means. Too many family law litigants need help beyond what is offered by the courthouse facilitators. The facilitators cannot give legal advice and cannot help to manage a party's expectations. Good LLLTs make the local legal community better. We need more of them. Low and moderate-income clients are often unable to find attorneys wi ll ing to take payments or a small retainer. From Street Law and in my practice, I routinely refer such clients to the LLLT in Bellingham, Jen Petersen. Her work is excellent (often better than some attorneys). Having her assist an opposing party often makes a case move along faster, with better judicial economy, and likely better outcomes for many cases, particularly tho e where custody i at issue. Her service to her clients and the legal community is invaluable. Children in disputed custody cases are better served when the parents have good legal help. A majority of the family law cases have pro se litigants on at least one side. For a moderate-income family in crisis, fu nding attorney legal fees of at least $5000 each is not readily obtainable. Public comments in opposition to sunsetting of LLLT license 130 of 135 ,,, v The decision to sunset the LLLT program was made without comment or rulemaking. The current BOG consists of people whose purpose is to dismantle the LLLT program using tea-party-like budget tactics. Though not the most popular proposition, APR 28 was passed by the Court and should remain. Recall the BOG and many of the Sections of five years ago - they were in support of the LLLT program. This current BOG according to the court's own investigation failed to adequately respond to a WSBA employee's sexual harassment claim. This is a BOG which praised a perpetrator. The BOG has a president who covered up the results of the investigation. This is not a policy making group which should be given any credibility when considering the legal needs of the public. Likely this BOG, because of their own inappropriate conduct, has cost WSBA members far more in insurance deductibles and lawsuit settlements than the LLLT program. Certainly, the LLLT program gives the public better value than funding sexual harassment and other employment related settlements. The decision to terminate the LLLT license is wrong and the process by which it was done was not open or fair to all involved. This program in involves over six years of intricate collaboration between the, LLLTs, potential LLLTs, community colleges, law schools, WSBA regulatory staff, the LLLT Board and the Court - all to the benefit of the public. I was so proud of our state providing this limited license. Now I am beyond disappointed with the Court's decision. I concur with the letter of dissent by Justice Madsen. Please reconsider and reinstate the LLLT program. Sincerely, J:t~ Kathryn E. Berger Public comments in opposition to sunsetting of LLLT license 131 of 135 . - Kathryn E. Berger SEATTlE "NA~ .Attorney at Law l')f 1504 Broadway 19 .JUN 2!J20 PM 2 l Bellingham, WA 98225 Washington State Supreme Court 415 12th Ave SW Olympia, WA 98501 Public comments in opposition to sunsettingS8.50i-23i4i5 of LLLT license 132 of 135 From: OFFICE RECEPTIONIST, CLERK To: Carlson, Susan; Lennon, Erin Subject: FW: 5 June 2020 Letter of the Supreme Court RE: LLLT Date: Wednesday, July 1, 2020 4:01:58 PM From: Alton McFadden [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, July 1, 2020 3:44 PM To: OFFICE RECEPTIONIST, CLERK Cc: Amanda Crossman Subject: 5 June 2020 Letter of the Supreme Court RE: LLLT Dear Justices of the Supreme Court. I would like to comment on the LLLT program you are phasing out. I have a paralegal (Amanda) in my office who is expected to finish all of the requirements for the program early next year. Based upon your letter she will become a LLLT within the time period provided. My paralegal has a two year associates degree, is taking the test to get her NALS certificate, and will have been in our office working as a paralegal for 10 years. She will then apply for the LLLT license. I am guessing that there are others in her situation, working on meeting one of the requirements. We intend to work with her in opening practice areas of unbundled legal services, to provide clients of lesser means an option to get professionally drafted materials. It also will allow me to step in if there is an issue that requires an attorney. I believe this is an area that will ultimately allow for a real increase in access to clients of lesser means. I suggest there are probably numerous other paralegals, who like my Amanda, are working toward meeting the requirements. They are doing this though in a busy office, and in their spare time. Amanda for instance will meet the 10 year requirement this August. Thus, in her case and others I am sure the delay was in waiting on time to pass. I suggest that as time goes on, more and more paralegals will meet the requirements. My belief is that they will provide a valuable resource for especially small firms like mine to address clients who need help but can’t afford an attorney to enter the case, or maybe to do a portion of the case without an attorney with unbundled services and then bring the attorney in when he or she is required, such as if the case proceeds to trial, or there is a complex motion. It allows options to such clients, which they have not had before, and allows a small firm to create a new source of revenue, using the LLLT. I believe that over time it will be an effective program and meet the goal of helping those who can’t afford full time legal services of an attorney. Alton McFadden Olsen & McFadden, Inc.,P.S. 1050 Ne Hostmark St, Suite 200 Poulsbo, WA 98370 Telephone: 206-780-0240 Fax: 206-780-0318 Email: [email protected] CONFIDENTIALITY NOTE: This e-mail message contains information belonging to OLSEN & MCFADDEN INC.,P.S., which may be privileged, confidential and/or protected from disclosure. The information is intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above. If you think that you have received this message in error, please contact the sender. If you are not the intended recipient, any dissemination, distribution or copying is strictly prohibited. Public comments in opposition to sunsetting of LLLT license 133 of 135 Penny R. Henderson Attorney at Law/Guardian ad Litem 103 E. Holly, Suite 509 Bellingham, WA 98225 Phone: 360.733.8180 July 1, 2020 Chief Justice Debra L. Stephens Washington State Supreme Court Via email: [email protected] RE: sunset of LLLT Program Dear Chief Justice Stephens, It was with profound disappointment I read the letter issued by the Washington State Supreme Court on June 5, 2020 indicating that the LLLT Program will be discontinued. · As a successful graduate of the Rule 6 Program, and member of the WSBA since both my graduation and passage of the Bar Exam in 1998, I can attest to the necessity of alternate routes to provide legal services - both for those wishing to provide them and those wishing to access them. As a mother of 3 in 1996 I was unable to go to law school for both economic and logistical reasons. My mentor, William Johnson, had such faith in me that he and his wife, Hon. Mary Kay Becker, saw me through the program in the allotted 4 years, and watched me successfully sit for the July 1998 Bar Exam. I would not have been able to achieve this success without them AND the Law Clerk program. As a result, with no law school loans, I was able to work for LAW Advocates, Northwest Justice Project and the Opportunity Council to provide low and pro bono legal representation for victims of domestic violence and individuals caring for children who are not their own. I have continued to do this work in addition to my Guardian ad Litem work. It has been rewarding work, and work that I would not have been able to pursue had I been saddled with crushing law school debt. I have known Jennifer Petersen, a local LLLT, since early 2000. She first came to work as a legal secretary and I saw talent. She worked hard, was informed and organized, and in time became the main cog in our office machinery. She then joined me in volunteering for our free Kinship Custody Clinic after it was established by NW Justice Project and LAW Advocates in approximately 2009. Our Clinic helps relative caregivers and fictive kin navigate the nonparental paperwork from start to finish. We receive referrals from DCYF, the Superior Court Clerk's Office and the Kinship Navigator, to name a few, and our Clinic Public comments in opposition to sunsetting of LLLT license 134 of 135 -2- grew to the point we needed to secure another attorney and another paralegal. To date, we have 2 attorneys, one LLLT and one paralegal to serve our population at the monthly free clinic. We hope to expand further to serve our growing population, and we were hopeful that LLLTs' practice areas would expand so we could further expand our program. It has been my experience that having LLLTs is similar to having Nurse Practitioners and Physician's Assistants. LLLTs have limited abilities to practice law but provide a valuable to service to those who cannot afford more. To me, this is the epitome of Access to Justice - a goal WSBA says is paramount. Please reconsider your decisions, or, in the alternative, open it up for public comment and a hearing. Thank you for your consideration of my thoughts. Sincerely, / . 1 G,h,,t;1- fJ-/!FLP(µ,~ Penny R. ~derson Attorney at Law/Guardian ad Litem /prh Cc: Terra Nevitt, Rajeev Majumdar, Stephen Crossland Public comments in opposition to sunsetting of LLLT license 135 of 135 From: OFFICE RECEPTIONIST, CLERK To: Linford, Tera Subject: FW: 60 public comments in opposition to sunsetting of LLLT license Date: Monday, April 19, 2021 8:04:15 AM Attachments: 2021-04-17 Ltr to Supreme Court with prior public comments re LLLT program RFS.pdf From: Christy Carpenter [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Saturday, April 17, 2021 11:37 AM To: OFFICE RECEPTIONIST, CLERK External Email Warning! This email has originated from outside of the Washington State Courts Network. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender, are expecting the email, and know the content is safe. If a link sends you to a website where you are asked to validate using your Account and Password, DO NOT DO SO! Instead, report the incident. Good morning, Please see the attached letter, which summarizes public comments to the WA Supreme Court in opposition to the sunsetting of the Limited License Legal Technician license. These comments were submitted after the Court's June 5, 2020, letter decision to sunset the license, but before the opening of the official public comment period on the APR 28 rules changes in January 2021. I would appreciate a reply to confirm that this has been received. Thank you. Christy Carpenter Limited License Legal Technician 2367 Tacoma Ave S, Tacoma, WA 98402 (253) 457-0967 [email protected] www.myLLLT.com NOTICE: The information contained in this transmission is CONFIDENTIAL and may also be protected by LLLT/CLIENT PRIVILEGE. The information is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to whom it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that unauthorized viewing, dissemination, distribution or copying of this transmission is in violation of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986 (18 U.S.C. § 2700 et seq.) From: OFFICE RECEPTIONIST, CLERK To: Linford, Tera Subject: FW: 60 public comments in opposition to sunsetting of LLLT license Date: Monday, April 19, 2021 8:04:15 AM Attachments: 2021-04-17 Ltr to Supreme Court with prior public comments re LLLT program RFS.pdf From: Christy Carpenter [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Saturday, April 17, 2021 11:37 AM To: OFFICE RECEPTIONIST, CLERK External Email Warning! This email has originated from outside of the Washington State Courts Network. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender, are expecting the email, and know the content is safe. If a link sends you to a website where you are asked to validate using your Account and Password, DO NOT DO SO! Instead, report the incident. Good morning, Please see the attached letter, which summarizes public comments to the WA Supreme Court in opposition to the sunsetting of the Limited License Legal Technician license. These comments were submitted after the Court's June 5, 2020, letter decision to sunset the license, but before the opening of the official public comment period on the APR 28 rules changes in January 2021. I would appreciate a reply to confirm that this has been received. Thank you. Christy Carpenter Limited License Legal Technician 2367 Tacoma Ave S, Tacoma, WA 98402 (253) 457-0967 [email protected] www.myLLLT.com NOTICE: The information contained in this transmission is CONFIDENTIAL and may also be protected by LLLT/CLIENT PRIVILEGE. The information is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to whom it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that unauthorized viewing, dissemination, distribution or copying of this transmission is in violation of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986 (18 U.S.C. § 2700 et seq.)