Too Many Georgians Can’t Access a Lawyer. A Proposed Program Might Help

Too few Georgians can access lawyers.

For one, there simply aren’t enough in rural parts of the state — a majority practice in and around Atlanta. Fifty-seven counties have no more than 10 attorneys; another seven counties have no attorneys at all, according to a report from a state Supreme Court study committee.

On top of that, many low-income residents cannot afford an attorney, even when one is available. Legal aid groups and pro bono attorneys lack the capacity to meet demand, the committee says. Public defenders are only guaranteed to low-income defendants in criminal cases, so residents involved in civil cases are often left to represent themselves. That’s a big problem for people involved in legal matters over evictions, child custody, debt, divorces, probate issues and more.

Self-represented litigants are more likely to lose their cases due to lack of legal knowledge, former Georgia Supreme Court State Justice P. Harris Hines said in 2017. A University of Chicago Law School study reviewing civil cases in federal district courts found that self-represented plaintiffs won favorable final judgements against defendants only 4 percent of the time, and self-represented defendants won 14 percent of the time; but when both parties have lawyers, plaintiffs and defendants each had a nearly 50 percent chance of winning.

The problem affects a lot of people: in over a third of civil cases in Georgia’s superior, state, probate and magistrate cases in 2023, at least one of the parties was self-represented.

Last year, the Georgia Supreme Court created a Study Committee on Legal Regulatory Reform to consider how to help. In its report released earlier this year, the committee recommends piloting a Limited Licensed Legal Practitioner (LLLP) program.

The idea is relatively new but has been tested in some other states. In such programs, professionals who are not lawyers, but who have legal skills, would be able to get a license qualifying them to provide certain kinds of support. It’s a similar idea to a nurse practitioner providing medical care despite not being a full doctor, the committee says.

While some other states’ programs allow LLLPs to represent clients, the committee recommends that Georgia’s practitioners only help with preparing legal documents and giving legal advice. (Its report notes one study that found that non-lawyers were more deferential to judges and less likely to challenge them than attorneys were.)

There are many kinds of civil cases where Georgia residents have a “high unmet need for legal services,” but for now, the committee proposes focusing just on consumer debt and landlord-tenant housing issues.

The idea can be tested in a three-year pilot program, and, if deemed a success, expanded to allow practitioners to handle other legal areas or more responsibilities statewide. For example, practitioners might start also helping with family and probate law and representing clients in some kinds of hearings or negotiating directly with other parties.

People who want to become LLLPs should need to have formal legal education or legal-related work experience, per the committee. They’d also have to go through training and pass tests of subject matter knowledge, character and skill at producing legal documents. They’d follow this up by shadowing an attorney and observing court proceedings before being allowed to work independently.

Only certain organizations would be approved to let their staff participate in the pilot, under the committee's proposal. Likely, most LLLPs would come from legal aid offices and community-based organizations that already help with consumer debt and housing issues. Organizations could decide whether practitioner services would be free and what income brackets qualify for help.

What’s the Precedent?

Georgia residents can already get legal support from some non-attorneys, the committee notes: professionals hired by family violence shelters or social service agencies have for decades helped survivors apply for protection orders.

And Georgia isn’t the first state to consider a limited licensed legal practitioner program, though the committee notes there isn’t enough data from other states to draw firm conclusions.

“Because many of the state programs that permit non-lawyers to provide legal services are relatively new, information about the quality and outcomes is limited,” the report says.

Georgia’s committee considered the experiences of Alaska, Arizona, Delaware, Minnesota, Utah and Washington. As of 2023, New Hampshire, Colorado and Oregon also had active programs allowing nonlawyer paraprofessionals to represent clients in certain legal areas, and the idea was also under consideration in California, Connecticut, New Mexico, North Carolina and South Carolina.

Some states think they’ve found success. Minnesota is one: it piloted a program from 2021-2024 before deciding to make it permanent. The state’s particular program allowed legal paraprofessionals to advise and represent clients in certain areas, with the oversight of an attorney. In a 2024 report, the court said the majority of surveyed clients, paraprofessionals and attorneys viewed the then-pilot program favorably. Most clients said they’d likely recommend the services to a family or friend, and most attorneys who’d supervised a paralegal were “very satisfied” with the paralegal’s work. All the attorneys and paralegals recommended a permanent program.

Washington, however, had trouble. In 2012 it became the first state to launch such a program, but eight years later the state Supreme Court voted to stop licensing new practitioners due to lack of interest and the program’s costs, per the American Bar Association.

Georgia could try to avoid Washington’s problem by promoting pilot participation opportunities to many different eligible audiences, Study Committee Chair Carla Wong McMillian says. For example, the state could hold open sessions with paralegals, social services workers and students at community colleges or universities. And program operators could reach out to law firms and legal aid organizations that could be willing to support their employees participating in the pilot.

The committee’s recommendations are just that — a suggestion. It remains to be seen if the state Supreme Court will take up the idea and put a pilot into action.