A Toolkit for Advancing Data-Driven Unauthorized Practice of Law Reform: Domestic Violence Advocate Case Study
The seven-question framework:
Question Six:
Will the service model need insurance?
Decision-making regarding whether and how to insure legal help provided to survivors through roles beyond lawyers hinges on the ability of adequate training to reduce liability risk.
Key findings:
DV Advocates see training as the key to lowering liability risk if legal advice is included in their services.
Organization leaders identified scope of service, as it relates to liability, as a component of program design.
Organization leaders want DV advocates to undergo proper training to limit liability and ensure that advocates understand their scope of service.
Liability is tied to providing the wrong advice and DV advocates do not want to provide incorrect information or advice that might harm their client.
In the Alaska model, the programmatic decision to host Justice Workers within a federally funded legal aid means that the legal aid can provide Justice Worker insurance; the tradeoff is that only community members eligible for federally-funded legal services—which generally excludes community members living above 125% of the federal poverty guidelines, undocumented community members, and incarcerated community members—can receive help from those Justice Workers.
In the Arizona model, organizations who want liability insurance may secure it themselves, but are not subject to federal funding restrictions regarding who in the community is eligible for their legal help. Instead, eligibility is determined by the community-based organization that houses the advocate.
The Utah model falls somewhere in the middle, with advocates being insured through the nonprofit Community Justice Advocates of Utah, and eligibility requirements being determined by the community-based organization that hosts the advocate.
Comparison Table of US Justice Worker Programs: Liability Protections for Justice Workers that Assist with DV-Related Legal Needs
In response to concern about consumer harm, UPL reform decision-makers have instituted regulatory requirements for data reporting by authorized programs to maintain authorization. This table shares information about the DV-focused Justice Worker program reporting requirements and insurance requirements.
| State | Program | Regulatory Requirements for Data Reporting | Additional Program Requirements for Data Reporting | Regulatory Requirements for Malpractice Insurance | Additional Program Requirements for Malpractice Insurance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Arizona | Innovation for Justice (i4J) Certified Community Legal Advocate Program |
Arizona Code of Judicial Administration § 7-211(N) requires both Quarterly and Annual Reports from participants in the CCLA Program:
1. QUARTERLY REPORTS: 2. ANNUAL REPORTS: 3. REPORTING & CONTENT: |
Requirement by i4J of monthly data reporting by participating CBOs/CCLAs on CCLA services | None | None |
| Utah | Community Justice Advocates of Utah (CJAU) |
Within the Utah Legal Regulatory Sandbox, "Moderate Innovation" entities must submit monthly reports to the Office of Legal Services Innovation. The data required in the 2026 update includes: (i) number of consumers; |
In addition to data required by the Utah Legal Regulatory Sandbox, CJAs must report client demographic information, case notes, court case information, outcomes, financial impact, and other related data to CJAU | Regulator authorized CJAU's programs, which included that CJAU would provide malpractice insurance | CJAU holds a legal malpractice policy which covers individual, affiliated CJAs |
| Alaska | Alaska Legal Services Corporation (ALSC) Community Justice Worker Program |
Under Alaska Bar Rule 43.5(5), ALSC must provide regular quarterly reports to the Alaska Supreme Court, and the Board of Governors regarding: (i) the number of clients served by approved CJWs, |
No public information available | None | None |
Perspectives from the DV Services Community:
“The status quo isn't working, what we're doing is not working. Yeah. So the lack of access to justice is harming more people than any bad scenario that I can imagine if advocates were given, carefully tailored, regulated access to an ability to provide advice.”
“I want to ensure I am providing survivors with the most accurate information without causing harm or providing incorrect advice.”
“I would be worried that if I didn't have the significant amount of training to do that, that I would give them the wrong advice.”
“My concern is what the advocate's liability is. What does that look like? What does the accountability process for an advocate look like?”