More people interact with administrative adjudications than with courts, and the lack of lawyers to assist people in these proceedings remains at crisis levels. Federal agencies have experimented with expanding nonlawyer representation and assistance for decades. To date, the regulatory structures governing non-lawyers have not been adequately studied. This project fills that gap. Relying on data collected through interviews, focus groups, requests for written comments, and a review of regulatory structures and procedures at fifteen federal agencies, a fuller picture emerges. The data provides important context for effective advocacy in support of these programs against political attacks.

The evidence reveals that nonlawyers perform crucial tasks, ranging from preliminary assistance gathering and filling out forms, all the way through full representation at hearings. This is true at all levels of formality, from formal trial-type hearings to very informal decision-making. This work is done by a variety of people, including some with substantive professional licensure in the particular subject area, others who work for nonprofits engaged with the client base, people who share lived experience with the clients they represent, or family members, friends, or other trusted sources with expertise in the particular matter through their relationship to the client. Regulations vary among agencies as to specific credentials, necessary training, and applicable ethics rules for nonlawyers. Agencies also vary in terms of oversight and discipline of non-lawyer representatives.

This study provides a comprehensive map of the various regulatory structures governing the work of nonlawyers in administrative adjudication. It addresses the main areas for agencies to consider when regulating nonlawyers, including valuing expertise beyond formal legal training, considering the role of community and trust in representation, incorporating ethics rules for nonlawyers, and navigating state regulatory reform issues that might conflict with federal practice. There is no one-size-fits-all solution. Rather, agencies need to consider what sorts of expertise and training best fit the particular adjudication tasks and calibrate their requirements accordingly.

Continue reading Representation, Calibrated