Tom Borman, LawFuel contributing editor
Washington is moving from tut-tutting to testing. The state’s high court approved a time-limited pilot so entities can apply to deliver legal services under non-traditional models. Think regulated programs for firms, nonprofits and legal techs that want to use different ownership structures and more automation.
The point is not to make lawyers obsolete. The point is to see whether innovation can shrink the justice gap without torching consumer protections.
If this sounds familiar it is because Utah already ran the experiment with a regulatory sandbox that licenses entities and tracks outcomes. The Utah office lists the authorized entities and publishes risk data with the enthusiasm of a lab report, which is refreshing in a profession that usually files its homework under tradition.
Arizona went further and killed the old Rule 5.4 barrier. It built a permanent Alternative Business Structures program so non-lawyers can co-own legal providers with court approval. That has already attracted large players, including a green light for KPMG’s ABS application and an AI-augmented shop launched by Eudia Counsel. Whatever your feelings about accountants in suits, the data points are piling up.
Washington’s own legal culture has history with controlled liberalisation. The Limited License Legal Technician program gave trained non-lawyers authority for discrete work. It never became the juggernaut reformers hoped for, but it taught the courts how to regulate new categories and measure harm.
The new entity pilot is the next step, now framed by a Supreme Court order that asks the only question that matters. Do alternative models actually help people who cannot afford conventional counsel.
The national backdrop is blunt. Stanford tracked five years of outcomes in Arizona and Utah and found ownership reform spurs new structures and measurable consumer benefit, with lawyers still central to delivery. Harvard’s access-to-justice research team keeps repeating the unfashionable truth. If you want different outcomes, try different rules and measure them properly. Welcome to the part where law finally pretends to be an evidence-based profession. See the Stanford analysis on entity reform and Harvard’s deep dive on sandboxes.
So what will this Washington pilot actually change?
Expect local firms and startups to apply for narrow approvals to use software for intake, triage and document work, then wrap lawyers around the riskier parts. Early interest reportedly includes traditional firms and newer AI-first tools. Big consumer brands may sit it out and keep scaling in Arizona where the regulatory cement has set. The state bar still has to finalise mechanics, but the direction is clear. Washington is joining the handful of jurisdictions willing to try something other than wishful thinking. Reuters
Why it matters for law firms. The cost of routine work has been subsidising the rest of the pyramid for years. Arizona’s ABS approvals and Utah’s sandbox show competitors who do not bill by the sacred six minutes can capture that work at scale. Firms that ignore this will discover that clients read research too. Start with IAALS’ overview on alternative business structures. Then ask your leadership whether you want to run tests inside your shop or watch someone else do it.
If you are still muttering about the purity of the profession, take it up with the court that authorised the pilot. Or better, read the Washington Bar’s own explainer on the project and why the court framed it around measurable access outcomes.
Pretending the market is fine has not aged well. See the WSBA’s summary here. Washington State Bar News
