A Toolkit for Advancing Data-Driven Unauthorized Practice of Law Reform: Domestic Violence Advocate Case Study
The seven-question framework:
Question Five:
Who will credential the justice worker?
Credentialing DV advocates to provide limited-scope legal advice is possible through a variety of pathways, with the current trend being court-based credentialing coupled with community-based training. DV organization leaders want to be involved in decisions regarding advocate eligibility for credentialing. Credentialing should consider service dimensions including ethics and substantive legal knowledge.
Key findings:
As with any professional group, experts suggest creating ethical guidelines for certified advocates providing limited-scope legal advice. These guidelines should primarily focus on consent, confidentiality, and continued education on ethics and professional responsibility.
DV advocates acknowledge that there is a wide range of educational experiences, backgrounds, approaches, and direct experience levels that advocates have. Some advocates are well-positioned to successfully provide legal advice while others are not.
Organization leaders want some decision-making discretion regarding which advocates can be authorized to provide legal advice because of varying skill, quality, and experience levels.
Nationally, Justice Worker programs are adopting a variety of credentialing models: in Arizona and Utah, Justice Workers providing DV-related legal help must be trained by education providers approved by the state Supreme Court. In Alaska, the Supreme Court has authorized Alaska Legal Services to provide training. In Arizona and Alaska, the state Supreme Courts credential the Justice Worker, post-training, while in Utah the Supreme Court has granted credentialing authority to the Justice Workers’ service support organization
Comparison Table of US Justice Worker Programs that Credential Justice Workers to Assist with DV-Related Legal Needs
| State | Program | Credentialing: Individual Authorization | Credentialing: Entity Authorization | Credentialing: Training Provider Authorization | Credentialing Exam | Credentialing Fee(s) | Credentialing Portability | Regulatory Requirements for Justice Worker Eligibility | Additional Program Requirements for Justice Worker Eligibility |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Arizona | Innovation for Justice (i4J) Certified Community Legal Advocate Program |
Under Arizona Code of Judicial Administration § 7-211(E)(4)(a), CCLAs must be nominated in writing by the applicable approved CBO and pass a certification exam by the Arizona Administrative Office of the Courts
Active CCLAs are listed on the Arizona Administrative Office of the Courts Directory. |
The Arizona Supreme Court has authorized "Approved Community-Based Organizations (CBOs)" to host CCLAs Arizona Code of Judicial Administration § 7-211(A) defines an Approved CBO as: "a public or private not-for-profit organization, including a designated community action agency, approved to provide services to participants as a result of having submitted a completed application form to the Division for approval by AOC, having received notice from the Division confirming the organization’s approval, and for which that approval has not expired or been revoked" As of February 2026, currently Approved CBOs include 22 organizations |
The Arizona Supreme Court has authorized organizations to provide "Approved certified community legal advocate training" to CCLAs Arizona Code of Judicial Administration § 7-211(A) defines approved CCLA training as: "a training for certified community legal advocates provided by a public or private not-for-profit organization approved by the Division to provide such training as a result of having submitted a completed application form to the Division for approval by the AOC, having received notice from the Division confirming the organization’s approval, and for which that approval has not expired or been revoked." |
Yes; under Arizona Code of Judicial Administration § 7-211(E)(4), CCLAs must pass a certification exam administered by the Arizona Administrative Office of the Courts. Applicants have 3 chances to retake the exam until they receive a passing grade | $100: Fee may be paid by the CCLA, a CBO ("Approved Organization"), authorized CCLA training provider, or another third party | Yes; under Arizona Code of Judicial Administration § 7-211(E)(4)(e), CCLAs maintain certification if they exit from their associated host CBO so long as, within 30 days, they become employed by or formally volunteer for another authorized CBO ("Approved Organization") and provide appropriate notice to the Arizona Administrative Office of the Courts | GENERAL ELIGIBILITY: Under Arizona Code of Judicial Administration § 7-211(E)(4)(a)(2), CCLA applicants must (i) be a citizen or legal resident of the U.S.; (ii) be eighteen years old or older; (iii) be of good moral character; (iv) have obtained a high school diploma or GED; (v) be employed by or provide volunteer service for approved CBO; (vi) have successfully completed study and training provided by, or with the approval of, approved CBO, and successfully completed approved CCLA training; (vii) be found competent by the approved CCLA training provider to provide legal services in the approved area of law; (viii) pass the CCLA substantive law examination administered by the AOC; (ix) completed a background check conducted by the CBO and cleared that check to the satisfaction of the CBO; and (x) agree in writing to comply with all applicable rules and regulations of the approved CBO and to provide authorized legal services as a CCLA in accordance with ACJA Section 7-211, and to timely respond to communications from the AOC or the Division INELIGIBILITY: |
Training is provided at no cost by i4J, as the only authorized provider of Approved CCLA Training as of February 2026 In addition to regulatory eligibility, i4J requires that applicants attest to their baseline foundation in advocacy and training-readiness for online legal learning |
| Utah | Community Justice Advocates of Utah (CJAU) | The Utah Legal Regulatory Sandbox does not individually authorize CJAs; participating CJAs are credentialed by CJAU. CJAs must complete the relevant required course, pass their program's associated final exam, and have an active contract with CJAU in order to provide legal services | Under CJAU's authorization from the Utah Supreme Court, the Utah Legal Regulatory Sandbox does not individually credential the community-based organizations who partner with CJAU; community-based organizations must enter into an agreement with CJAU to authorize their employees as CJAs |
Under CJAU's authorization from the Utah Supreme Court (as incorporated via application), CJAs are trained by CJAU or "Training Partners." CJAU is authorized to train CJAs in the areas of (i) domestic violence (protective orders and stalking injunctions); (ii) housing stability; and (iii) medical debt. Under Standing Order 16 and pilot authorization of the Utah Supreme Court (and as incorporated via CJAU's application), Innovation for Justice is authorized to train CJAs in the areas of (i) housing stability and (ii) medical debt. CJAU partners with Innovation for Justice to deliver the housing stability and medical debt training courses |
Yes; final exam administered by CJAU (domestic violence) or Innovation for Justice (housing and medical debt). Learners must score 80% or greater on in-course quizzes and the cumulative final exam. Advocates are allowed to retake their cumulative final exam. | There is an annual $5,000 Sandbox fee for the Sandbox entity. | Yes; once certified, if a CJA leaves their host organization and becomes employed at a new organization, that new organization can establish a contract with CJAU and enable the CJA to continue providing legal services. If more than one year has passed since provision of last legal service, CJAU requires that the CJA retake their credentialing exam. If they do not demonstrate proficiency with the material, CJAU requires that they retake and pass the associated portions of the required course | As authorized by the Utah Supreme Court, general eligibility terms for CJAs are established by CJAU via authorization of CJAU's Sandbox application |
As outlined in their application for authorization, CJAU requires that CJAs: 1. Be employed by an organization that does work in or adjacent to the area of law of the training (the organization cannot be subject to disqualification from submitting their own application to the Office of Legal Services Innovation due to disbarment or criminal history at the ownership or managerial oversight levels) 2. Have consent from their organization to participate in the training and to provide legal services, and attestation of readiness to participate 3. Agree to not charge the client for legal services received In additional to terms outlined in their application, CJAU requires that CJAs: 4. Have a foundation in advocacy, either through personal or professional experience |
| Alaska | Alaska Legal Services Corporation (ALSC) Community Justice Worker Program | 1St LAUNCH: ALSC Community Justice Worker Resource Center determines training-readiness for practice CURRENT: |
The Alaska Supreme Court has authorized ALSC to implement CJW programs | The Alaska Supreme Court has authorized ALSC to implement CJW programs | None | None | None; ALSC is the only organization authorized to host CJWs in Alaska | CJWs must practice law exclusively for ALSC on a full-time or part-time basis, either as staff or as a volunteer | Training is provided at no cost for CJWs who commit to taking at least one case through ALSC’s pro bono program or share legal information in their community |
Perspectives from the DV Services Community:
“Limited-scope legal advice for nonlawyer advocates in any area, especially in domestic violence, is a complex advanced skill that should be added after a solid foundation of advocacy work.”
“Having some experience with people in crisis or trauma is more important than any kind of degree or credential.”
“[some advocates have] a great level of competency and have been doing it for 20 years, and I could trust them [to give legal advice],” but “there are others that I would not want them to give legal advice.”
“Education level is less correlated as much as experience level is.”