Reengineering UPL Legal Services Innovations

Reengineering UPL Legal Services Innovations

Integrating Licensed Social Workers into Tiered Defense

BY SHAUNTIA’ D. WHITE

AS PART OF ITS COORDINATED STATEWIDE legal and social welfare initiatives, Maryland is advancing access to justice for underserved populations by deliberately reforming its legal service landscape.1 These efforts include the exploration of tiered practice models, modernization of unauthorized practice of law (UPL) rules, and the expanded use of non-lawyer professionals, primarily—but not exclusively—within the civil justice system. At the same time, recent federal policy dialogues—while not altering licensure authority or scope of practice—have highlighted broader challenges in workforce credentialing and professional classification that disproportionately affect allied professions, including social work. Although social workers’ clinical licensure remains intact, many increasingly operate in court-adjacent and justice-involved roles that fall outside traditional clinical frameworks and lack corresponding legal recognition. This reality underscores the need for state-level innovation that can both expand access to justice and advance social workers’ professional standing through additional, legally cognizable credentials—such as Legal Paraprofessional (LP) licensure—without displacing or diluting existing clinical licensure.

This article, therefore, reconsiders traditional regulatory boundaries to address unmet legal needs by expanding tiered defense models. Drawing from comparative regulatory frameworks and empirical evidence from multiple jurisdictions, it demonstrates that properly supervised and regulated non-lawyer practice can improve access to justice without increasing harm, including in contexts beyond civil matters. The authorization of a limited, supervised pathway permitting licensed social workers to serve in narrowly scoped LP roles within a tiered defense system, particularly in criminal and juvenile matters, is not unprecedented. Such authorization would complement rather than displace the roles of existing attorneys,

paralegals, and community justice workers (CJWs), while expanding equitable access to justice and improving outcomes. This article argues that Maryland’s criminal and juvenile systems present a parallel opportunity to formalize and strengthen interdisciplinary defense models that already rely heavily on social work expertise but lack corresponding legal authority by reforming UPL doctrine through affirmative authorization, defined scope, and judicial oversight.

Federal

Context: Informative, Not Determinative

Federal policy under the one big beautiful bill and the Department of Education’s proposed redefinition of professional degrees threaten

Reengineering UPL Legal Services Innovations

Integrating Licensed Social Workers into Tiered Defense

BY SHAUNTIA’ D. WHITE

AS PART OF ITS COORDINATED STATEWIDE legal and social welfare initiatives, Maryland is advancing access to justice for underserved populations by deliberately reforming its legal service landscape.1 These efforts include the exploration of tiered practice models, modernization of unauthorized practice of law (UPL) rules, and the expanded use of non-lawyer professionals, primarily—but not exclusively—within the civil justice system. At the same time, recent federal policy dialogues—while not altering licensure authority or scope of practice—have highlighted broader challenges in workforce credentialing and professional classification that disproportionately affect allied professions, including social work. Although social workers’ clinical licensure remains intact, many increasingly operate in court-adjacent and justice-involved roles that fall outside traditional clinical frameworks and lack corresponding legal recognition. This reality underscores the need for state-level innovation that can both expand access to justice and advance social workers’ professional standing through additional, legally cognizable credentials—such as Legal Paraprofessional (LP) licensure—without displacing or diluting existing clinical licensure.

This article, therefore, reconsiders traditional regulatory boundaries to address unmet legal needs by expanding tiered defense models. Drawing from comparative regulatory frameworks and empirical evidence from multiple jurisdictions, it demonstrates that properly supervised and regulated non-lawyer practice can improve access to justice without increasing harm, including in contexts beyond civil matters. The authorization of a limited, supervised pathway permitting licensed social workers to serve in narrowly scoped LP roles within a tiered defense system, particularly in criminal and juvenile matters, is not unprecedented. Such authorization would complement rather than displace the roles of existing attorneys,

paralegals, and community justice workers (CJWs), while expanding equitable access to justice and improving outcomes. This article argues that Maryland’s criminal and juvenile systems present a parallel opportunity to formalize and strengthen interdisciplinary defense models that already rely heavily on social work expertise but lack corresponding legal authority by reforming UPL doctrine through affirmative authorization, defined scope, and judicial oversight.

Federal Context: Informative, Not Determinative

Federal policy under the one big beautiful bill and the Department of Education’s proposed redefinition of professional degrees threaten

The authorization of a limited, supervised pathway permitting licensed social workers to serve in narrowly scoped LP roles within a tiered defense system, particularly in criminal and juvenile matters, is not unprecedented.

the social work workforce that Maryland’s LP reforms rely on. Excluding social work and eliminating Graduate PLUS loans could affect 370,000 students and remove $8 billion in federal loans eligible for critical service professions, according to the Council on Social Work Education (CSWE).2 Maryland already faces substantial workforce shortages: projections indicate that by 2028, the state will need thousands of additional behavioral and social service workers, including more than 2,600 social workers and roughly 8,000 social and human service assistants by 2028, according to the data presented at November’s Workgroup for Social Work License Requirements.3 In January 2026 alone, the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration terminated federal grant funding for the CSWE’s Minority Fellowship Program—a program that for more than 50 years has supported graduate training, mentorship, and workforce entry for social workers specializing in mental health and substance use treatment.4 Although this action does not alter state licensure authority, it underscores the growing instability of federal investment in the behavioral health workforce. Absent reliable access to affordable graduate education, and amid expanding reliance on diversion, treatmentbased dispositions, and interdisciplinary defense models, the pipeline of licensed professionals available to serve as supervised LPs may contract, undermining the staffing capacity needed to implement tiered diversion and defense initiatives effectively.

Although these federal efforts do not alter state licensure or the legal scope of practice, they expose systemic gaps in how interdisciplinary professional work is recognized and regulated. Maryland is uniquely positioned to address these gaps. The contrast is instructive: social work is regulated through graduated licensure pathways that formally integrate supervision and workforce alignment, while law continues to rely on the unauthorized practice of law doctrine despite increasing dependence on non-lawyer professionals in criminal

and juvenile systems. In this structure, social workers face a risk of professional erosion when performing legal-adjacent functions without formal authorization. LP licensure would instead formalize accountability, protect professional identity, and transform historically informal or peripheral roles into regulated participation within the justice system.

Critics may frame this proposal as a relaxation of professional regulation. In reality, it constitutes a deliberate reengineering of UPL. The Arizona Supreme Court’s licensed legal professional program and its broader access-to-legal services reform, codified in the Arizona Code of Judicial Administration §§ 7-210 and 7-211, provide persuasive regulatory precedent. Although Arizona has not fully integrated social workers into LP licensure, its rule explicitly authorizes limited legal practice by nonlawyers in criminal and juvenile matters under court authority, demonstrating that courts may safely expand professional roles without compromising ethical or competency standards, despite conservative critiques to the contrary. 5, 6

Maryland’s approach could differ in form but not in authority. Where Arizona relies on codified procedural specificity, Maryland historically employs a more flexible, equity-oriented regulatory framework, given its demographic diversity and persistent access-to-justice gaps.

Why Social Workers: Functional, Not Preferential Integration

The proposal to integrate social workers into LP pathways is grounded in function rather than professional preference. Social workers already operate across diversion, mitigation, compliance entry, and continuity of care systems, all domains that materially influence outcomes in plea-dominated criminal courts. Holistic defense models, such as those employed by The Bronx Defenders, embed social workers alongside attorneys in interdisciplinary teams. Evaluations show that holistic defense can

2 Council on Social Work Education, Education Department Definition Limits Access to Social Work Education (Nov. 12, 2025), cswe.org/news/newsroom/cswe-education-departmentdefinition-limits-access-to-social-work-education/.

3 Final-Meeting Packet-11-13-24.pdf

4 Council on Social Work Education, CSWE Statement Regarding Federal Cuts to Mental Health and Substance Abuse Programs (Jan. 14, 2026), cswe.org/news/newsroom/cswe-statementregarding-federal-cuts-to-mental-health-and-substance-abuse-programs/

5 The Arizona Supreme Court’s Division of Licensing and Credentialing annually reports on access to legal services, consistently finding that expanding non-lawyer roles can address unmet legal needs when paired with structured regulation and supervision (Arizona Supreme Court, 2026). LPs in Arizona have been likened to nurse practitioners in the healthcare context: they expand service capacity, improve access, and relieve bottlenecks in the system, all while operating under professional oversight. Within this framework, paralegals retain a direct pathway to licensure focused on procedural and document-centered advocacy, preserving their essential role in supporting attorneys while distinguishing their responsibilities from those of social workers or other multidisciplinary practitioners.

6 According to the American Bar Association (2025), of jurisdictions who reconsidered traditional regulatory boundaries to address unmet legal needs, scholars have documented that non-lawyers legal services providers can improve access without increasing harm when properly supervised and regulated.

significantly reduce custodial sentences and overall incarceration days, even if the effects on conviction rates vary.7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12

In fiscal year 2018, the vast majority of sentencing events were resolved by plea agreements (including American Bar Association (ABA) and non-ABA pleas), reflecting the dominance of negotiated dispositions in Maryland’s criminal justice system. Statistically, more than four out of five felony convictions were obtained through guilty pleas, and negotiated agreements resolve an estimated 90% to 95% of all criminal cases, including a substantial proportion of misdemeanors, pursuant to Md. Rule 4-243.13 In such systems, the most consequential legal work often occurs upstream of adjudication, where client stability, understanding, and compliance determine both plea integrity and long-term outcomes.14

Arizona’s LP program offers a proven model for non-lawyers to practice task-limited, low-risk criminal law. LPs may prepare and sign legal documents, advise on rights and remedies, draft and file motions, and appear in court—but only in misdemeanor cases where incarceration is not at issue. Although Arizona permits unsupervised practice within scope, Maryland could require mandatory attorney supervision, avoiding dual-role confusion and reinforcing due process protections.15, 16, 17 By limiting practice to narrowly scoped criminal and juvenile matters and retaining judicial oversight,

Maryland can responsibly integrate social workers into tiered defense models, expanding access to justice while preserving both legal integrity and social work professionalism.

Institutionalizing Interdisciplinary Defense Within Maryland’s Criminal Justice Framework

Maryland’s criminal and juvenile systems illustrate why limited, supervised LP authorization for licensed social workers is neither novel nor normatively disruptive. Competence to stand trial, defined by the U.S. Supreme Court in Dusky v. United States18 establishes a minimal constitutional floor, while Drope v. Missouri19 emphasizes contextual, fact-dependent evaluation. Maryland courts similarly stress individualization of mental health and mitigation evidence.20

The Maryland Rules of Criminal Procedure governing incompetence and criminal responsibility operationalize these constitutional principles. Yet, their application turns on psychosocial factors—addiction, trauma, cognitive impairment, and instability—that are not readily captured through legal inquiry alone. Maryland recorded more than 2,000 opioidrelated overdose deaths in 2025, conditions routinely impair comprehension and the voluntariness at critical stages of adjudication.21 These dynamics are amplified in juvenile proceedings, where developmental immaturity independently affects competence and dispositional outcomes.22

7 James M. Anderson et al., The Effects of Holistic Defense on Criminal Justice Outcomes, 132 Harv. L. Rev. 819 (2019) (finding that holistic defense reduces custodial sentences and overall incarceration days).

8 Mark W. Lipsey & Francis T. Cullen, The Effectiveness of Correctional Rehabilitation: A Review of Systematic Research Findings, in 34 Crime and Justice: A Review of Research 1 (Michael Tonry ed., 2007) (providing meta-analysis evidence on intervention effects and rearrest rates).

9 Steve Aos et al., Evidence-Based Public Policy Options to Reduce Future Prison Construction, Criminal Justice Costs, and Crime Rates (2006) (discussing intervention impacts, including on recidivism).

10 RAND Corp. & Univ. of Pa. Law Sch., Evaluating the Effect of Holistic Indigent Defense on Criminal Justice Outcomes (2018) (finding that holistic defense reduces the likelihood and length of custodial sentences and incarceration days without affecting conviction rates).

11 Mark W. Lipsey & Francis T. Cullen, The Effectiveness of Correctional Rehabilitation: A Review of Systematic Research Findings, in 34 Crime and Justice: A Review of Research 1 (Michael Tonry ed., 2007).

12 Steve Aos et al., Evidence-Based Public Policy Options to Reduce Future Prison Construction, Criminal Justice Costs, and Crime Rates (2006) (discussing intervention impacts, including on recidivism).

13 Md. State Comm’n on Crim. Sentencing Pol’y, Annual Report 2018 (2018), msccsp.org/Files/Reports/ar2018.pdf.

14 Law Review Committee, Maryland Criminal Procedure and Plea Bargaining Overview, 55 Law J. Md. 123 (2020), law.justia.com/cases/maryland/court-of-special-appeals/2020/2094-18.html.

15 Am. Bar Ass’n, Nonlawyer Navigators in State Courts: An Emerging Consensus Workshop Materials (2019), americanbar.org/groups/probono_public_service/ejc/2019-workshops/ (discussing nonlawyer navigator programs in state courts).

16 Mary E. McClymont, Nonlawyer Navigators in State Courts: An Emerging Consensus (2019), srln.org/node/1403/reportnonlawyer-navigators-state-courts-emerging-consensusmcclymont-2019 (surveying nonlawyer navigator programs).

17 Nat’l Ctr. for State Cts., Leveraging Navigator Programs to Assist Court Users (2025), ncsc.org/resources-courts/leveraging-navigator-programs-assist-court-users (providing an overview of court navigator programs and expansion).

18 362 U.S. 402, 402 (1960).

19 420 U.S. 162, 181 (1975).

20 State v. Kanaras, 357 Md. 170, 185–86 (1999).

21 Md. Dep’t of Health, Unintentional Drug- and Alcohol-Related Intoxication Deaths in Maryland, 2023 (2025), health.maryland.gov/vsa/Documents/Overdose/2023_IntoxAnnualReport_Final.pdf.

22 Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551, 569–70 (2005); J.D.B. v. North Carolina, 564 U.S. 261, 272 (2011).

Because effective assistance of counsel may require access to nonlegal expertise, formally authorizing and licensing social workers—already embedded in defense teams—to perform defined LP tasks under supervision aligns regulatory structure with constitutional practice.23

Conclusion

The question Maryland confronts is not whether social workers participate in criminal and juvenile defense systems—they already do—but whether the law will continue to rely on their expertise while withholding corresponding legal recognition, accountability, and regulatory coherence. As adjudication becomes increasingly plea-dominated and diversion-oriented, constitutional guarantees of competence, effective assistance, and voluntariness turn less on formal trial safeguards than on upstream decision-making shaped by psychosocial stability and interdisciplinary support. UPL doctrine has

not evolved alongside these shifts. Limited, supervised LP authorization offers a principled response: one that disciplines interdisciplinary participation, stabilizes defense infrastructure, and protects both clients and professionals. Maryland’s criminal and juvenile systems thus present not an outlier for access-tojustice reform, but its next logical domain.

23 In Ake v. Oklahoma, the Court recognized that due process may require

Shauntia’ White, LMSW, MLS, MS- LP Candidate, is a licensed social worker in Maryland, Arizona, and Washington, D.C., and will begin neuroscience credentialing and coursework this year. She is working towards becoming a licensed legal paraprofessional in Arizona, where she currently sits on the Nonlawyer Service Provider Board.