California Weighs Rule Allowing Nonlawyers to Assist Consumers in Debt Collection Cases

California is considering a court rule that could allow trained nonlawyers to provide limited legal assistance to low-income consumers, including people navigating debt collection lawsuits where defendants frequently appear without attorneys.

The California Supreme Court is considering proposed Rule 9.45.1, which would establish a statewide Community Justice Worker Program. Under the proposal, approved legal services organizations could train and supervise nonlawyers to perform specifically authorized legal work for their clients.

The proposal could have particular significance for the accounts receivable management industry because consumer debt litigation is among the areas where proponents say California has substantial disparities in legal representation.

A Sept. 1 Los Angeles Times opinion piece supporting the proposal cited research finding that just 2% of defendants in Los Angeles debt collection cases have attorneys, while collection plaintiffs are overwhelmingly represented.

The proposal is not yet an adopted rule. The State Bar’s public comment period closed Aug. 22, and the Supreme Court has directed the State Bar to review those comments and determine whether to recommend adoption, recommend changes or provide other recommendations to the court.

Community Justice Workers Could Provide Limited Legal Services

Community justice workers, or CJWs, would not receive unrestricted authority to practice law.

Under the Supreme Court’s proposed framework, participating legal services organizations would apply to an authorizing body designated by the court. Approved organizations would establish the scope of services their CJWs could provide and would be responsible for training and supervising them.

CJWs generally would have to be at least 18 years old, possess a high school diploma or equivalent, complete required training and work exclusively under an authorized legal services organization. The State Bar would maintain a public roster identifying participating organizations and workers, including their authorized scope of practice.

Participating legal services organizations would also have substantial compliance responsibilities. They would be required to supervise CJWs, assume professional responsibility for their work, notify the State Bar of specified changes or rule violations and submit reports twice a year covering matters including clients served, hours worked, case outcomes and complaints.

The program would undergo an evaluation within two years after the first legal services organization is authorized.

Existing Rule Covers Attorneys, Not Community Justice Workers

The proposal would create new Rule 9.45.1 alongside California’s existing Rule 9.45, rather than simply expanding the existing registered legal aid attorney program.

Current Rule 9.45 permits attorneys licensed and in good standing in another U.S. jurisdiction to practice in California while working for an eligible legal aid organization under the supervision of a California attorney. Those attorneys must register with the State Bar and generally may participate in the program for no more than five years.

The proposed Rule 9.45.1 would address a different population: people who are not licensed attorneys but who have been trained and authorized to provide a limited range of legal services through participating organizations.

Debt Collection Litigation Could See Practical Effects

The Supreme Court’s proposal does not itself establish a statewide list of debt collection functions that CJWs would be permitted to perform. The precise scope of practice would be defined through the authorization process for participating organizations.

That distinction matters for collection agencies, debt buyers and collection law firms. Depending on how individual CJW programs are approved, consumers who currently respond to collection lawsuits without professional assistance could have greater access to help evaluating claims, preparing documents or navigating court procedures.

That could affect answer rates, disputed claims, settlement discussions and other stages of consumer collection litigation, particularly in high-volume courts where large numbers of defendants currently proceed without representation.

California would not be the first jurisdiction to experiment with supervised nonlawyer legal assistance. The California Courts said similar programs are operating in Alaska, Arizona, Delaware, Washington, D.C., Hawaii, Illinois, South Carolina and Texas.

State Bar Recommendation Comes Next

The Supreme Court initiated the current process through a June administrative order after receiving a December 2025 petition from legal aid organizations seeking creation of the program.

Rather than adopting the petitioners’ proposal outright, the court issued its own modified version of Rule 9.45.1 and instructed the State Bar to conduct a 45-day public comment process.

The comment period has now ended. The State Bar must consider the feedback before returning recommendations to the Supreme Court, which retains authority over whether the rule ultimately takes effect.

The Legislature has also addressed the proposal through SB 1129. The enrolled legislation would require the State Bar, when it returns the proposal to the Supreme Court, to provide the Assembly and Senate Judiciary committees with a report identifying any statutory changes the State Bar believes would be necessary to implement a Community Justice Worker Program.

For receivables companies operating in California, the next significant development will be whether the State Bar recommends moving forward and what limits ultimately are placed on the types of legal assistance CJWs may provide in consumer debt matters.