The Effort to Remove “Non-Lawyer” from the ABA Vocabulary

You may have seen the LinkedIn petition urging the ABA to stop using the term “non-lawyer.” It’s sparking conversation across the legal profession, and Law.com recently explored the campaign behind it.

We’re breaking down both sides of the issue to better understand those advocating for the change as well as those supporting maintaining a distinction between lawyers and technology specialists.

A more inclusive approach

Olga Mack, a fellow at the Stanford Center for Legal Informatics, and Damien Riehl, vice president and solutions champion for vLex, posted the petition in April, with 20 industry influencers extending support as early advocates. Their push comes as law firms and legal departments are increasingly integrating generative artificial intelligence and advanced technologies into their workflows.

As legal professionals adopt more technology tools, they’re relying on technologists and business development professionals to integrate the tools into their practices. Many are C-level professionals whose expertise enables lawyers to use sophisticated technologies in legal operations.

Petition supporters say tech experts may find it demeaning to be referred to “by who they aren’t rather than who they are.” They point to the lack of a comparable term in other professional service sectors, such as medicine and engineering. These industries don’t refer to unlicensed employees as non-doctors or non-engineers.

The dividing lines

Those in favor of retaining the term emphasize how law firms’ cost structure requires professional distinctions. Lawyers perform billable work to generate profits for their firm, while “non-lawyers” are considered among a firm’s overhead costs.

Their perspective is that “non-lawyer” is a straightforward term that delineates between those who have the credentials to perform legal services — and share in the profits their firm generates — and those who don’t. Another dividing line is the need for clarity around who is and isn’t a lawyer when it comes to attorney-client privilege.

A precedent for terminology change

Petition supporters took a cue from the ABA’s request to the federal judiciary to replace the term “court-appointed master” with “court-appointed neutral.” The recommendation is intended to replace a term that has negative connotations, including historical connections to slavery.

As for what’s next in the “non-lawyer” debate, petition supporters want to see the topic addressed at the upcoming ABA annual meeting. Their hope is that if the ABA stops using the term, state bar associations and law firms will follow suit.

We’re keeping an eye on this and will share an update if the petition is taken up at the ABA conference. In the meantime, we’d love to hear what you think.