Both attorneys and judges take an oath to promote justice for all, however,

that is not the case in our current system. The world we live in today looks

incredibly different than it did just a few years ago and, as a result, the practice

of law must adapt to meet the changing needs of individuals in this new era.

Notably, the access to justice problem, specifically affecting low- to moderateincome

individuals, requires a shift in the availability of legal services

provided. Limited scope representation, which has been accepted by the

American Bar Association for 20+ years, where an attorney handles certain

aspects of the representation while the client remains responsible for others,

allows attorneys to provide services to low- to moderate-income individuals

who may not otherwise obtain legal representation. Although many states have

begun to lay out guidelines indicating acceptance of the practice as a valid form

of representation, many judges and attorneys are still opposed to the practice.

This Article argues that the legal profession should embrace the practice

of limited scope representation (and promote that attorneys use it to satisfy pro

bono hours, in practice areas of law that do not traditionally engage in limited

scope, etc.), to assist with closing the justice gap, and this can be accomplished

with the support of the judiciary and law schools. Specifically, judges need to

not only accept the practice, but be a driving force behind promoting the

practice. Moreover, law schools need to promote the practice by educating

students about the concept early on in their legal career in professional

responsibility and contract drafting courses. This Article provides a historical

overview of how the ABA has addressed and supported limited scope

representation for the last 20+ years, as a valid means to provide access to

justice to those historically underserved. The Article goes on to discuss the

access to justice problem most notably affecting low- to moderate-income

individuals as well as examines the concept of pro bono and discusses pro bono

requirements suggested by the ABA and, required, in varying degrees, by the

states. Finally, the Article proposes that the judiciary and law schools should

be on the forefront of promoting limited scope representation as yet another

solution to assist with closing the justice gap.