When Less is More: The Limitless Potential of Limited Scope Representation to Increase Access to Justice for Low- to Moderate-Income Individuals

Both attorneys and judges take an oath to promote justice for all, however, that is not the case in our current system. The world we live in today looks incredibly different than it did just a few years ago and, as a result, the practice of law must adapt to meet the changing needs of individuals in this new era. Notably, the access to justice problem, specifically affecting low- to moderateincome individuals, requires a shift in the availability of legal services provided. Limited scope representation, which has been accepted by the American Bar Association for 20+ years, where an attorney handles certain aspects of the representation while the client remains responsible for others, allows attorneys to provide services to low- to moderate-income individuals who may not otherwise obtain legal representation. Although many states have begun to lay out guidelines indicating acceptance of the practice as a valid form of representation, many judges and attorneys are still opposed to the practice. This Article argues that the legal profession should embrace the practice of limited scope representation (and promote that attorneys use it to satisfy pro bono hours, in practice areas of law that do not traditionally engage in limited scope, etc.), to assist with closing the justice gap, and this can be accomplished with the support of the judiciary and law schools. Specifically, judges need to not only accept the practice, but be a driving force behind promoting the practice. Moreover, law schools need to promote the practice by educating students about the concept early on in their legal career in professional responsibility and contract drafting courses. This Article provides a historical overview of how the ABA has addressed and supported limited scope representation for the last 20+ years, as a valid means to provide access to justice to those historically underserved. The Article goes on to discuss the access to justice problem most notably affecting low- to moderate-income individuals as well as examines the concept of pro bono and discusses pro bono requirements suggested by the ABA and, required, in varying degrees, by the states. Finally, the Article proposes that the judiciary and law schools should be on the forefront of promoting limited scope representation as yet another solution to assist with closing the justice gap.