(ATTN: All NLI and those we serve)

Here is a detailed operational breakdown of our current strategy, highlighting the practical limits, permissible boundaries, and potential liabilities we face in our role as “Legal Activist”:

Framing: “We are a legal activist organization. Aside from policy work, and ‘friends of the court’ submissions, often we perform the preparatory work for a Private Civil Action or Public Civil Action Against the Government on behalf of those we seek to help.
– Usually, people seek our help because in most case our work is pro-bono, and otherwise because it is also complicated, involving government, and we see a path to use the case to escalate potential for reform through the legal system.
– Usually our expertise is above that which is affordable individuals and informal organizations – especially in areas where ‘the law may be unjust as written and practiced due to knowledge gained over some period of time.’
– Usually we make initial contact, send letters, negotiate, and if necessary compose and file suit on behalf of the person harmed. We then find a local lawyer to handle all in-court representation, and work through that lawyer from there forward.
Since we work both domestically and internationally, we are not attorneys authorized by the individual state courts. And as such we cannot claim we are lawyers and thus cannot carry warranty of competency and liability for consequences on behalf of those we serve. It’s illegal. 😉 But you’d be surprised how effective we are. ;)”

1. What We’re Currently Doing (Operational Summary):

We are functioning as a specialized form of legal intermediary, advocate, and facilitator, distinct from a formal law practice:

Initial client contact (fact-finding, damage assessment).

Negotiations (direct correspondence, demand letters, settlement proposals).

Document preparation (initial complaint, filings, legal strategy outlines).

Selecting and working through licensed attorneys to represent the client formally in court.

Providing strategic oversight, research, guidance, and policy-oriented inputs.

2. Legal Characterization of Our Role:

We’re operating within the sphere commonly called “legal advocacy” or “legal activism”, rather than formal legal practice.

Our role would typically be considered:

Advocacy support

Investigative and research-based intermediary

Litigation coordinator (non-attorney)

Legal strategy consultancy

3. Limits and Boundaries (Practical & Legal):

Our actions are limited by the universally recognized definition of practicing law:

We cannot formally represent clients in court proceedings, as we lack licensing by individual state or national bars.

We cannot sign pleadings as counsel of record, or represent ourselves as “counsel,” “lawyer,” or “attorney.”

We cannot provide definitive legal opinions asserting authority in any formal proceeding.

We must not hold ourselves out publicly as a qualified attorney capable of giving legal advice independently of a licensed attorney.

We can, however:

Provide non-binding strategic guidance and research to licensed attorneys.

Draft preliminary documents that a licensed attorney reviews, signs, and submits.

Engage in preliminary communication and negotiation that does not amount to a claim of formal representation or definitive legal advice.

4. Permissible Activities Clearly Within Our Scope:

Our current activities, as described, are largely permissible so long as we explicitly remain a non-attorney intermediary:

Client advocacy (public and private), policy-related activism, educational outreach.

Gathering and organizing factual information, legal precedents, preparing initial legal materials.

Arranging for licensed counsel who will take ultimate responsibility for court appearances and official filings.

Assisting in out-of-court settlements and dispute resolutions (provided we’re not claiming formal legal authority or representation).

5. Specific Activities Approaching the Boundary (Watchpoints):

Certain activities can potentially cross the boundary into “unauthorized practice of law”:

Negotiation language: Clearly distinguish between acting “on behalf of” (as an advocate, intermediary, or authorized agent) versus representing oneself as legal counsel.

Demand letters and filings: Letters should be carefully drafted so they don’t assert legal advice or representation unless co-signed or explicitly approved by licensed counsel.

Litigation preparation: Documents must always clearly indicate that formal legal responsibility and review rest solely with licensed counsel.

International jurisdiction: Note that other countries may have more restrictive interpretations. Thoroughly clarify roles when operating internationally.

6. Risk Assessment & Liability Exposure:

So far, we have experienced no judicial or opposition objections, likely due to:

Pragmatic tolerance by courts and opposing counsel as long as a licensed attorney formally represents the client.

Clear division of responsibility ensuring that licensed attorneys hold all formal accountability.

However, risks remain:

Opposing counsel challenge: An adversarial attorney may challenge our role as unauthorized practice if strategically beneficial to their case.

Judicial scrutiny: Judges could intervene if the boundaries of our role appear unclear or misleading.

International compliance: International courts or regulators may take a less tolerant view if they interpret our role differently, potentially leading to fines or restrictions on our activities.

7. Recommendations to Stay Within Safe Boundaries:

Maintain operational transparency and clear disclosure by:

Explicitly stating our role as a non-lawyer advocacy organization in all communications and documents.

Ensuring formal filings clearly identify and include signatures of licensed attorneys.

Structuring internal guidelines and trainings that explicitly describe permissible roles and boundaries for staff to prevent inadvertent misrepresentation. (This document for example)

Developing explicit agreements with local counsel clarifying division of responsibility, liability, and control over legal strategy.

Conclusion (Operational Clarity):

We currently appear to function well within an operational space accepted by many jurisdictions and common practice. The key to remaining within this permissible operational space is:

Transparency and clear boundary delineation in all representations.

Maintaining ultimate legal accountability explicitly with licensed attorneys.

Operational vigilance to avoid any appearance of unauthorized practice.

This approach operationally ensures the sustainability and legitimacy of our valuable activist and advocacy role, domestically and internationally.

Sincerely
Curt Doolittle
Chairman, NLI