Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Entity Regulation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
WSBA: Five applicants in entity-regulation pilot as court weighs transparency and consumer safeguards
Summary
The Washington State Bar Association told the Supreme Court its 10-year entity-regulation pilot launched in October and has five applicants; WSBA staff outlined a multi-step review process, public posting of redacted applications, client surveys and complaint mechanisms while justices probed whether impacts on practicing lawyers will be tracked.
The Washington State Bar Association reported to the Washington Supreme Court that its entity-regulation pilot project launched in October and has received five applications, marking an early phase of a 10-year experiment intended to expand access to legal services while safeguarding consumers.
"Entity regulation pilot project is up and running. We launched the pilot in October. Entities can now apply for authorization to provide legal services in Washington," said Renata Garcia, chief regulatory counsel for the Bar, who described a four-step review: a WSBA staff completeness and background check; a substantive review by a Practice of Law Board subcommittee; interviews with entity compliance officers; and, if recommended, a Practice of Law Board recommendation to the Supreme Court.
The WSBA told the court it is seeing two common models in the applications: technology-driven delivery with lawyer oversight (including automated client intake, AI-assisted triage and routing) and alternative business structures seeking flexibility under RPC 5.4 to allow nonlawyer investment. Garcia said the association is drafting a proposed court order for the first applicant and will include explicit elements for any authorization: scope of practice, permitted delivery methods, a list of RPCs to be waived or modified and required consumer-protection measures.
"We are going to be publishing" applications, Garcia said, with confidential business information redacted. She added that entities authorized under a court order must operate with clear disclaimers and participate in a client-survey program that reports directly to WSBA so the association can monitor consumer impact.
Several justices and WSBA governors asked whether the pilot will measure effects on the legal profession. "It's not a factor that was addressed in the court order creating the pilot project," Garcia said, explaining the pilot's primary statutory charge is to assess access for the public; she added that data collected on who is served and how will allow WSBA to identify downstream impacts on lawyers.
Board members and court members debated how to provide public input. The WSBA said Practice of Law Board meetings are public and applications will be posted; it acknowledged it does not yet have a broad outreach mechanism to solicit public comment beyond posting and suggested the court could direct a formal comment period if desired.
The WSBA also described enforcement and consumer-safety tools: background investigations of individuals controlling entities, required compliance officers, an established complaint process and client surveys intended to surface harms. The association said it has drafted enforcement procedures and can remove entities from the pilot if they fail to meet requirements.
Next steps include finishing the proposed order for the first applicant and sending it to the Supreme Court for review. WSBA officials emphasized they are taking a deliberate approach intended to balance innovation with public protections and promised quarterly reporting to the court while the pilot runs.
The court and WSBA agreed to continue monitoring the pilot closely and to consider ways to incorporate broader public input as applications move from review to potential court authorization.
