{"id":240,"date":"2006-10-29T19:31:12","date_gmt":"2006-10-29T23:31:12","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blogs.law.harvard.edu\/shlep\/2006\/10\/29\/mass-project-allows-limited-court-appea"},"modified":"2007-02-28T18:23:45","modified_gmt":"2007-02-28T22:23:45","slug":"mass-project-allows-limited-court-appearances","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/shlep\/2006\/10\/29\/mass-project-allows-limited-court-appearances\/","title":{"rendered":"Mass. project allows limited court appearances"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"blackCheckS\"\u00a0update<\/em>: see our Jan. 1, 2007 posting on Universal Unbundling in California<\/a> for more information on the benefits of unbundling and the extension of\u00a0limited representation to all civil cases in California and New Hampshire.\u00a0<\/font><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court has okayed a pilot project that would make it easier for lawyers and\u00a0pro se<\/em> litigants to enter into limited scope (“unbundled”) representation agreements in Probate and Family Court proceedings.\u00a0 [via Robert <\/em>Ambrogi’s LawSites<\/em><\/a>]<\/font>\u00a0<\/font>\u00a0As the MA Trial Court Library’s pro se<\/em> webpage<\/a> explains:<\/font><\/p>\n

\n
Beginning November 1, 2006 and continuing for 18 months, attorneys will be permitted to provide limited assistance to pro se<\/em> litigants in the Hampden [Springfield] \u00a0and Suffolk [Boston] Probate and Family Courts only. “The Project will permit attorneys to assist a pro se litigant on a limited basis without undertaking a full representation of the client on all issues related to the legal matter for which the attorney is engaged.” Attorneys may limit the scope of their representation, including appearance and drafting documents.<\/font><\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\n
Unbundling advocates (such as Forrest Mosten<\/a>) have long argued that such limited-scope representation (or “discrete task lawyering”) is (1) a win-win situation for lawyer and consumer, and (2) already permitted under current ethics rules\u00a0(e.g<\/em>. ABA Model Rule 1.2<\/a>\u00a0Scope of Representation; and Comment to Rule 1.1<\/a>\u00a0 Competence)\u00a0.\u00a0 The rub has been whether courts would prevent a lawyer’s withdrawal from\u00a0a case once making an appearance on behalf of a party.\u00a0\u00a0 The Massachusetts order<\/a> sets forth a procedure for permitting that withdrawal when the lawyer has been retained\u00a0on a limited basis.\u00a0 Similar rules already exist in several states, including:<\/font><\/div>\n
\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n
\n
\"safetypin\"\u00a0– –\u00a0California: <\/font>California Rules of Court, Rule 5.70<\/a><\/font>\u00a0and Rule 5.71<\/a>\u00a0 [update <\/strong><\/em>(Nov. 1, 2006): see Calif. Expands Unbundling to All Civil Cases<\/strong><\/a>]<\/font><\/font><\/div>\n
\n
– – Florida: <\/font>Unbundling Rules<\/a><\/font>\u00a0(discussed in this ABA Journal<\/em> <\/font>article<\/font><\/a>)\u00a0<\/font><\/font>\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n
– – Maine: Bar Rule 3.4(i)<\/a>; Civil Procedure Rules<\/a> 5, 11 (b) and 89 (a). <\/font><\/div>\n
– – Nevada: Rules of Practice of the Eighth Judicial District Court of the State of Nevada, <\/font>Rule 5.2<\/a><\/u>.<\/font><\/font><\/font><\/div>\n
– – As shlep<\/em> has reported, court self-help centers in Idaho<\/a> and Nevada<\/a> compile lists of attorneys willing to take family law matters on a limited-scope basis. If you know of similar lists, let us know.<\/font><\/font><\/font><\/div>\n

\u00a0<\/p>\n

<\/font><\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\n

<\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/p>\n

<\/font><\/font><\/font>\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n
— Click for the\u00a0NCSC List of State Laws regarding Unbundling<\/font><\/a>. For more, see UnbundledLaw.org<\/em><\/a> and the f\/k\/a<\/em> posting Six States Address Unbundling in Their Own Ways<\/a>.\u00a0 For a smile, see Prof. Alan Childress<\/a>‘ take on Carolyn Elefant’s food preparation<\/a> metaphor [hat tip: OotJ<\/em><\/a>‘s Jim Milles]<\/font><\/font><\/div>\n

– update<\/em> (Nov. 27, 2006):\u00a0 At Legal Profession Blog<\/em><\/a>, Mike Frisch (Georgetown Law’s Ethics Counsel) reports on the state of unbundling in Arizona<\/strong>, saying “Arizona must be included on the survey of states that allows some limited-scope representation and ghost writing of briefs.”\u00a0 Mike also links to a very useful webpage on Unbundling in Alaska<\/a>.\u00a0 Presented by the Alaska Bar, it defines unbundled services and its benefits, and has a very nice\u00a0listing of the\u00a0kinds of “discrete tasks” that a lawyer might do for a “limited representation” client —\u00a0including over a dozen tasks.\u00a0<\/p>\n

<\/font><\/font><\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\u00a0\"thumbDown\"afterthought<\/em> (Dec. 5, 2006): Things aren’t going so well in New York State.\u00a0 See our posting “All Bundled Up in New York<\/a>.<\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/p>\n

<\/font><\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

\u00a0update: see our Jan. 1, 2007 posting on Universal Unbundling in California for more information on the benefits of unbundling and the extension of\u00a0limited representation to all civil cases in California and New Hampshire.\u00a0 The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court has okayed a pilot project that would make it easier for lawyers and\u00a0pro se litigants to […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":437,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[991,896,897],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-240","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-news-items","category-resources-consumer","category-resources-practitioner"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/shlep\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/240","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/shlep\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/shlep\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/shlep\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/437"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/shlep\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=240"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/shlep\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/240\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/shlep\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=240"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/shlep\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=240"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/shlep\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=240"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}