The Nonlawyer Legal Help Rule California’s Supreme Court Now Has to Decide

California’s Supreme Court has a proposed rule of court in front of it that would let trained nonlawyers give limited legal help to legal aid clients. The State Bar’s Board of Trustees has recommended that the court adopt a modified version. The court has not acted.

The proposal is called the Community Justice Worker program, or CJW program. It is proposed California Rule of Court 9.45.1. Until the court adopts the rule, the program is not in effect.

The petition asks for a statewide CJW program

A coalition of legal aid organizations led by the Legal Aid Association of California, OneJustice and Legal Link published the proposal in December 2024. A working group had formed in July 2024, with advice from Stanford Law School’s Deborah L. Rhode Center on the Legal Profession and Frontline Justice.

On December 8, 2025, the three organizations petitioned the Supreme Court to adopt Rule 9.45.1. The case is S294332. The proposed rule would establish a statewide CJW program and allow the State Bar’s Legal Services Trust Fund Commission, or LSTFC, to create a process for legal services organizations to apply for approval.

The State Bar filed a response on March 3, 2026. It said it could not take a substantive position because the Board of Trustees had not considered the rule. It offered the court five possible procedural responses, ranging from declining to act to rejecting the concept. The petitioners replied on March 17, urging the court to act quickly.

The LSTFC had approved a resolution supporting the concept on November 7, 2025. The resolution also identified questions about how CJWs would be disciplined, what professional obligations they would have, and whether they would be subject to the jurisdiction of the State Bar, the court, or both.

A State Bar staff memo to the LSTFC dated May 29, 2026, said the petition had not resolved those questions.

The court sent the proposal through a public comment process

On June 17, 2026, the Supreme Court directed the State Bar to circulate the proposed rule for public comment and then recommend whether the court should adopt it, “with or without changes.” The court announced the order on June 18. The order is Administrative Order 2026-06-17-01.

The court described the proposed program as one in which trained nonlawyers would provide limited legal services to legal aid clients while working with and under the supervision of lawyers at approved legal aid organizations. The court’s announcement said similar programs operate in Alaska, Arizona, Delaware, Washington D.C., Hawaii, Illinois, South Carolina and Texas.

Public comment closed at 11:59 p.m. on August 22, 2026, 45 days after the order. The State Bar received 110 comments. Eighty-six percent supported establishing a CJW program, either as proposed or with modifications.

The State Bar’s materials do not detail the arguments made by the roughly 14 percent of commenters who did not express support. We do not fill that gap with speculation.

Before publication, we checked the State Bar’s proposed-rule page and public-comment list rather than relying on press summaries. Two secondary sources gave different dates for the Board’s vote, one listing September 17 and 18 and another listing September 19. We therefore refer to mid-September and do not identify a single vote date.

The rule would make legal aid organizations responsible for CJW work

Under the version described on the State Bar’s public comment page, an Authorizing Body designated by the court would review and approve applications from legal services organizations. The authorized organizations would train and supervise CJWs and assume professional responsibility for their work product.

The tasks a CJW could perform would be set organization by organization through each organization’s authorization. The proposed rule therefore does not create one identical list of duties for every CJW.

A CJW would have to be at least 18 years old, have a high school diploma or equivalent, and not be licensed by the State Bar. The person also would have to meet training requirements certified by the authorizing organization.

The State Bar would keep a public roster of authorized organizations and CJWs. An organization would have to notify the State Bar within 30 days of changes affecting eligibility or of CJW rule violations. It would also have to report twice a year on client numbers, hours, resolutions, complaints and costs.

For supervising lawyers at an authorized legal aid organization, those provisions would put the organization’s training and professional responsibility duties at the center of the program. Lawyers at legal services organizations would also need to watch which task lists receive approval for their organization.

Supporters point to the justice gap, while oversight questions remain

The legal aid coalition and the State Bar Board’s recommendation rest on an access-to-justice rationale. The State Bar of California’s 2024 California Justice Gap Study found that 73 percent of California households reported at least one civil legal problem in the prior year. It also found that 86 percent of the lowest-income residents received no help or inadequate help.

The court’s announcement noted the eight jurisdictions with similar programs. Supporters have identified trained nonlawyers working under legal aid lawyers as one response to the number of people who do not receive adequate civil legal help.

The documented oversight questions come from the State Bar’s own commission and staff. They include discipline, professional obligations, jurisdiction and program cost. The State Bar’s May 29 memo estimated that administering the program would require about two full-time program analyst positions at about $497,000 a year. It also estimated a one-time technology cost of about $50,000 and an ongoing technology cost of about $10,000 a year.

The record therefore contains both the access-to-justice case and questions about supervision and accountability. We did not find named bar groups or opponents with published objections. The Docket does not take a side.

The Board recommended changes, but the Supreme Court must still decide

At its mid-September 2026 meeting, the Board of Trustees unanimously approved a recommendation that the Supreme Court establish a statewide CJW program. It approved a modified version of the rule, based largely on modifications proposed by the LSTFC, and recommended that the LSTFC serve as the Authorizing Body.

Board Chair José Cisneros said the Board was “confident” the approach gives the program “the strong foundation it needs.”

For private lawyers and referral sources, a CJW under the proposed rule would be an unlicensed person tied to an authorized organization. The public State Bar roster would give a lawyer who encounters a CJW on the other side, or through a referral, a place to check the person’s status and organizational connection.

A separate legislative track remains open. SB 1129, introduced by Sen. Anna Caballero, was amended on March 23 and April 16, 2026. It would direct the State Bar to form a working group to study CJW models in other jurisdictions and report to the Legislature and the Supreme Court by January 1, 2029. The Senate passed the bill on April 23, and the Assembly referred it to its Judiciary Committee on May 11. We have not verified its status after the State Bar’s May 2026 update.

Watch the Supreme Court docket in Case No. S294332 for action on Rule 9.45.1. Until the court acts, the proposed rule changes nothing. Lawyers at legal services organizations should also track the approved task lists, the State Bar roster, and SB 1129.

Archivar is an AI operating system for a law firm that answers every call 24/7 in English and Spanish, runs intake, manages matters, and remembers everything the firm does. A legal aid or small firm fielding a call about whether a nonlawyer can help can have the intake record what the caller asked and when, in English or Spanish, and keep it on the matter.