In 2023, Colorado’s Supreme Court announced a new licensure program for legal paraprofessionals. The changes they announced affected Colorado Rule of Civil Procedure 207. The aim of the rule change and program, according to the Supreme Court, is to increase the availability and affordability of legal representation in certain domestic relations matters.
In these domestic relations cases, it’s currently more likely than not that both parties appearing in court will be without representation. According to 2022 data from the Colorado Judicial Branch, 74% of filing parties and 73% of responding parties in domestic relations cases appear pro se.
In the 2023 Supreme Court announcement, Chief Justice Brian Boatright said increasing access to legal representation in these matters was a long-term commitment of the Supreme Court to Coloradans and the new licensure program would both help people who couldn’t otherwise afford representation and the courts to effectively and efficiently handle cases.
On April 30, the Office of Attorney Regulation Counsel will hold the first set of exams for the new program, with a swearing-in ceremony scheduled for June 20.
The Colorado General Assembly is working to bring state law in line with the new rule. House Bill 24-1291, titled Licensed Legal Professionals, was introduced on Feb. 13 and passed unanimously in the House Judiciary Committee on Feb. 27.
If the bill passes, authorized LLPs would be able to perform a variety of legal services by the latter part of 2024. These services, outlined in the bill and the rule, include:
— Legal separations, declarations of invalidity of marriage or dissolutions of marriage or a civil union.
— Initial allocations or modifications of an allocation of parental responsibility, including parentage determinations.
— Matters involving establishment or modification of child support or maintenance.
— Seeking, modifying or terminating a civil protection order.
— Matters involving a name change.
— Matters involving a request for an amended birth certificate to change the sex designation of an adult.
Rep. Regina English, one of the sponsors of the bill, told the committee that while an LLP would be able to perform these duties, they wouldn’t be performing as an attorney.
“So they can’t perform as an attorney, because they’re not. And a license to practice is necessary, so there will be some schooling behind this,” said English. “They can’t just show up and intrude and take over the attorney’s space.”
The bill also includes restrictions on who can practice as an LLP. Coroners, sheriffs, deputy sheriffs and jailers can’t practice as LLPs, even if otherwise qualified. Judges are also excluded.
Rep. Junie Joseph, the bill’s other sponsor, told the committee the bill is about access to justice for middle and lower-income families in Colorado.
“This will allow lower-income and mid-income clients to access resources within the courts for domestic matters that may be unattainable without an attorney,” said Joseph.
Several witnesses from the legal community testified in support of the bill.
David Stark, a retired partner at Faegre Drinker and chair of the Supreme Court Advisory Committee, appeared on behalf of the OARC to express the organization’s support for the bill. He told the committee the Advisory Committee established a subcommittee to address the justice gap in 2015.
“The subcommittee, composed of lawyers, non-lawyers, judges, paralegals and citizens met regularly over the next five years and in 2020 proposed a program to address the needs of the 75% of parties who do not have a lawyer in domestic relations cases,” said Stark. “With input from judges, clients, family court staff, paralegals and family attorneys, the subcommittee submitted a recommendation to the court to create the licensed legal paraprofessionals program.”
He added the adoption of the program was deliberate, transparent and inclusive.
Maha Kamal appeared before the committee both in her personal capacity as a family lawyer and on behalf of the Colorado Bar Association. She testified to the committee the CBA’s supported the bill, and compared an LLP to a physician’s assistant.
“We liken the license, the LLP, to a physician’s assistant,” said Kamal. “So it’s not meant to create a two-tiered system at all, it’s supposed to support and complement it.”
The Vice-Chair of the LLP committee, Amy Goscha, told the committee she was consulted by the program about the legal needs in rural Colorado, as she practices both in metro Denver and the Western Slope.
“I can tell you that there’s not many lawyers in the rural areas,” said Goscha. “It’s expensive to live there and people need help. LLPs will be able to help address their needs within the family law context.”
Goscha also emphasized LLPs would complement rather than compete with attorneys and strengthen the legal system in Colorado.
Elisa Overall, the executive director of the Colorado Access to Justice Commission, gave unequivocal support on behalf of the CAJC to the bill. She noted Colorado wasn’t going it alone in its licensure of legal paraprofessionals.
“At least 21 other states either have or are working on adopting licensed legal paraprofessional programs just like ours,” said Overall. “These programs are gaining nationwide momentum because they reflect a very common sense programmatic solution to the undeniable need for trained professionals to help people who can’t otherwise afford an attorney.”
Rep. Lorena Garcia asked the witnesses about the fee structure for LLPs, and how to prevent the fees from becoming prohibitive. Stark cited the example of Utah, where LLPs charge approximately 25% to 50% of what lawyers charge, and he expected the prices in Colorado to be similar.
There were also questions about the scope of authority to practice LLPs would gain. Rep. Javier Mabrey wanted to know in particular what would occur if a case an LLP was working on went to trial.
Stark told Mabrey the LLPs scope of practice is covered by Rule 207.1, which was adopted by the Colorado Supreme Court.
“It is limited. The idea here is that these folks will handle uncomplicated domestic cases,” said Stark. “Now if the case goes to trial, the LLP can sit at counsel table and offer support for the client, can make argument to the court, but cannot examine witnesses.”
Stark added in situations where the case becomes too complicated for the LLP to handle, they are obligated to advise their client they will need a lawyer to handle the more complex issue.
Angela Arkin, a retired district court judge and a member of the Supreme Court Advisory Committee, Michael Maday, representing the Mediation Association of Colorado and Jeffrey Riester, appearing on behalf of the Colorado Attorney General’s Office, also expressed their support for the bill.
One amendment was made to the bill in committee. Joseph said the amendment would narrow the scope of practice to remove representation in dependency and neglect cases, except for the narrow case of child support. She added there was also some language left out during the draft process that was in the amendment.
The amendment passed, and after a unanimous vote, the bill was moved as amended to the full House.