Legal Access & Regulatory Reform

The Tennessee Supreme Court on Sept. 16, 2025, issued an order soliciting comments from the legal community and the public on seven questions related to regulation of the legal profession. Specifically, the court is seeking feedback on how it approaches accreditation of law schools and practicable alternatives for accreditation, alternatives to law school in preparation for the practice of law, alternative pathways to admission to the bar, modifying requirements for admission without examination, allowing paraprofessionals to do some legal work, and allowing non-lawyer ownership of law firms.

The effort is being undertaken as large segments of the population — especially rural and low-income individuals — cannot secure legal help. According to the Legal Services Corporation (LSC), 1.2 million Tennesseans qualify for LSC-funded legal aid, yet most still receive insufficient assistance due to a lack of resources in their area or due to restrictions on the types of cases legal service organizations are allowed to accept. In addition, a number of Tennessee counties qualify as “legal deserts.” As of 2020, the state had 20 counties with fewer than 10 lawyers each. According to the court’s order, regulatory structures may contribute to shortages and cost barriers and thus it is open to innovative models that address modern needs.


View TBA's Comment & All Public Comments Submitted to the Court

You can view TBA's comment here, and you can view all of the comments submitted to the court here. Select 2025 to view Part 1 and Part 2, and select 2026 to view Part 3,  Part 4, Part 5 and Part 6. Alternatively, view the six combined documents of comments using the links below:


How to Provide Feedback to the TBA

The TBA currently is accepting feedback from members — email townhall@tnbar.org with your thoughts — and has formed the Legal Access and Regulatory Reform Task Force to gather and review that feedback. Throughout the month of December, the TBA featured a weekly series to educate TBA members on the seven points in the order.

The TBA is also conducting virtual town halls for Tennessee attorneys to gather feedback on the individual issues presented in the order. You can find the links to RSVP below:

Jan. 22 @ 12pm CT - Rural Attorneys

Feb. 10 @ 12pm CT - Alternative Education & Licensure Pathways

Feb. 13 @ 11am CT – Non-lawyer Ownership & Fee Sharing

Feb. 19 @12pm CT - Paraprofessionals

Feb. 23 @ 12pm CT - ABA Accreditation

Feb. 26 @ 12pm CT - Interstate Mobility and Reciprocity

Additional Resources & Scholarly Articles

Reports from Other States:

 

Regulatory Structures to Be Reviewed

The following are the seven issues on which the court is seeking comments. The details about actions taken by other states are presented as information only to help educate the legal community about how other jurisdictions have responded to these issues and to help interested parties formulate feedback to the TBA before the association considers filing comments with the Supreme Court.

ABA Accreditation & Education Standards

In the order, the court asks (1) whether it should "modify, reduce, or eliminate its reliance on ABA accreditation in setting minimum educational requirements for applicants to the Tennessee Bar" and (2) whether "there are any practicable alternatives to ABA accreditation" it should consider.

What other states are doing:

Florida: A workgroup created by the Florida Supreme Court has submitted a 52-page report outlining 12 alternative methods for law school accreditation, according to the ABA Journal. The group, formed in March, developed nine alternatives the court could implement independently and three options involving coordination with outside entities, including requesting that the ABA's accreditation council become independent from the larger ABA. Reuters also reported on the Florida effort.

Ohio: The Supreme Court of Ohio has launched a review of its ABA accreditation requirements according to a press release from the court.

Texas: The Supreme Court of Texas in September said it intends to end its reliance on the ABA for law school oversight and instead have the court determine which schools’ graduates can be admitted as lawyers. Reuters reports on that effort.

Additional News:

12/2/25: The U.S. Federal Trade Commission on Tuesday called the American Bar Association’s accreditation of law schools a “monopoly” that increases the cost of a law degree and limits the supply of new lawyers. Read more here.

Alternative Education & Licensure Pathways

In the order, the court asks (1) whether there are "less costly alternatives to the traditional three-year law school curriculum that would adequately prepare individuals for the practice of law" and (2) whether the court "should consider adopting alternative pathways for admission to the Tennessee Bar — for example, by allowing applicants to
satisfy the minimum educational requirements and/or examination requirement in part by completing an apprenticeship or serving with a legal aid organization."

What other states are doing:

Currently, at least 13 states have enacted, or are considering, innovative pathways to licensure according to the National Center for State Courts. 

California: Offers a legal apprenticeship program known as the Law Office Study Program.

Utah: Offers the Alternative Pathway program requiring 240 hours of supervised work and assessments.

Vermont: Offers a legal apprenticeship program known as the Law Office Study Program.

Virginia: Offers a legal apprenticeship program known as the Law Reader Program.

Washington: Offers a legal apprenticeship program. Read more from the Washington State Bar Association.

Wisconsin: Under its “diploma privilege” system, graduates of the state’s two ABA-accredited law schools may become licensed attorneys without taking either the traditional bar exam or the Multistate Professional Responsibility Exam (MPRE). Students must satisfactorily complete a designated curriculum, which tracks traditional first-year requirements and offers numerous options for upper-level courses.  The “vast majority” of students graduating from one of Wisconsin’s law schools qualify for the diploma privilege.

Interstate Mobility & Reciprocity

In the order, the court asks whether it "should consider modifying requirements for admission to the Tennessee Bar for those licensed in other states to promote interstate practice and mobility."

What other states are doing:

Clio has a comprehensive resource that explores reciprocity rules in each state. 

Role of Paraprofessionals

In the order, the court asks whether "any legal services currently provided by lawyers could be competently provided by paraprofessionals and, if so, what qualifications, limitations, or subject matter restrictions the court should consider imposing."

What other states are doing:

Some states have created or are piloting programs to license paraprofessionals, often called Legal Paraprofessionals or Limited License Legal Technicians (LLLTs), allowing these individuals to provide legal advice and representation in specific, defined areas of law.

Alaska (mandatory bar): The Community Justice Worker Program (CJW) helps bridge the justice gap in rural Alaska by training and supervising qualified non-lawyer mid-level legal practitioners to serve Alaskans who can’t afford or otherwise access civil legal help. To date, over 100 community justice workers from 40 different Alaska communities have completed some level of training and are ready to assist clients. In 2023, the CJW Program enters its next phase, establishing a Resource Center and preparing to expand regionally.

Arizona (mandatory bar): Offers a Legal Paraprofessional (LP) Program that allows licensure in the areas of Family law, Administrative Law, Limited Jurisdiction Civil Law, Criminal Law, Probate Law, and Juvenile Dependency Law. 

California (mandatory bar): Launched a working group to study the potential for a paraprofessional licensing program.

Georgia (mandatory bar): Implementing a three-year pilot program in three areas of the state — one rural, one urban and one mid-sized community — that would allow the legal community to experiment with expanding legal practice. Limited Licensed Legal Practitioners (LLLPs) would be authorized to give legal assistance to landlords and tenants and people with consumer-debt issues. The LLLPs would focus on general legal guidance and preparing and drafting forms and documents but would be prohibited from appearing in court or contacting other parties.

Indiana (voluntary bar): The Commission on Indiana’s Legal Future is piloting a regulatory sandbox program modeled after Utah and other pilot programs to address legal deserts and more.

Minnesota (voluntary bar): Launched a pilot project for legal paraprofessionals to provide legal advice and, in some instances, represent clients in court for specific issues.

New Hampshire (mandatory bar): Enacted a paraprofessional pilot program in 2022. It allows paralegals to provide limited legal services to underserved Granite Staters in circuit courts. The program is available exclusively to clients who earn up to 300 percent of the federal poverty level.

Texas (mandatory bar): Has given preliminary approval to programs that would allow non-lawyers to provide limited legal services to low-income individuals. 

Preliminary Approval of Rules Governing Licensed Legal Paraprofessionals and Licensed Court-Access Assistants, August 2024
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE TEXAS ACCESS TO LEGAL SERVICES WORKING GROUP, December 2023

Utah (mandatory bar): Implemented a "regulatory sandbox" that allows designated entities to provide legal services and permits licensed paralegal practitioners to practice in limited areas of law. Created the Utah Office of Legal Services Innovations to implement the program. The Institute for the Advancement of the Legal System found that the program "shows extraordinary promise." Read the Supreme Court's letter to the Utah Bar Association announcing the program.

Washington (mandatory bar): Created the Limited License Legal Technician (LLLT) program, which has been a model for other states

Non-Lawyer Ownership & Fee Sharing (Rule 5.4)

In the order, the court asks whether it "should modify, reduce, or eliminate regulations prohibiting non-lawyer ownership of law firms or fee sharing with nonlawyers."

What other states are doing:

  • Arizona: Formally changed law firm ownership rules statewide according to Bloomberg Law.
  • California: Rejected proposals to change law firm ownership rules. Read more from Advocate.
     
  • Florida: Rejected proposals to change law firm ownership rules. Read more from The Florida Bar.
     
  • Puerto Rico: Changed its rules earlier this year according to Bloomberg Law.
     
  • Utah: Formally changed law firm ownership rules statewide according to Bloomberg Law.
    • The Utah legal regulatory sandbox (the “Sandbox”) is a seven-year pilot project and regulatory experiment launched by the Utah Supreme Court that enables authorized entities to employ certain innovative legal service methods and business models that would otherwise be considered the unauthorized practice of law or could not otherwise be offered under the present Rules of Professional Conduct in Utah. The Sandbox is set to expire on August 14, 2027. 
    • Utah Office of Legal Services Innovation
      • The Utah Supreme Court closed the alternative business structure/ABS-only portion of the Sandbox on December 31, 2024.  For Phase 2, the focus of the Sandbox is on Moderate and High Innovation entities, which are models in which alternative legal providers (nonlawyers and/or software) engage in limited scope legal practice.
  • Washington: Launched a limited pilot program late last year according to Bloomberg Law.

This information is offered as a service to the public and the legal community. Statements or opinions expressed by any of the companies or organizations cited do not necessarily reflect those of the Tennessee Bar Association, its officers, board or staff. The TBA does not directly or impliedly endorse, support or vouch for the authenticity of any representations made.

Get Involved!


Read the Tennessee Supreme Court order 
 

Submit comments to the court


Submit feedback to the TBA Legal Access & Regulatory Reform Task Force


Follow news from the TBA about this effort