Law360 (July 2, 2026, 5:29 PM EDT) -- Two paralegals and a nonprofit have asked the Fourth Circuit to revive their challenge to a North Carolina law that blocks nonlawyers from providing legal advice.

In an opening brief filed Wednesday, Morag Black Polaski, Shawana Almendarez and North Carolina Justice for All Project told the Fourth Circuit that they wished to "provide limited advice" to self-represented litigants about certain court forms, but a statute banning the unauthorized practice of law blocks them from doing so, therefore impeding access to justice.

"Many North Carolinians have legitimate civil legal needs but, because they are unfamiliar with legal procedures or are experiencing the turmoil of eviction, divorce, domestic violence, debt, or probate, they cannot complete the forms timely or correctly without help," the brief states.

In the face of what they call an "access-to-justice crisis," the paralegals and nonprofit told the Fourth Circuit their hands were tied when it came to offering information classified as "legal advice" to parties in filling out sometimes complicated forms.

"They seek to speak with people about their factual circumstances and legal goals and advise them what a court-created form does, how forms interact, what terms mean, what local rules to know, what forms to file, and what information belongs on those forms," the brief states. "That advice would be individualized, but limited."

Current North Carolina State Bar guidance states that nonlawyers may provide general information but must refrain from offering individualized advice, tying the hands of paralegals who wish to help explain forms, according to the brief. For Polaski and Almendarez, this has meant refraining from speaking to friends and family members about the forms, they said.

The nonprofit and paralegals had sued five local district attorneys and the president of the North Carolina bar in January 2024.

In December of that year, U.S. District Judge Terrence W. Boyle dismissed the claims, finding the "regulation targets conduct, not speech, as it regulates who may engage in the practice of law rather than what those engaged in the practice of law must or must not say."

North Carolina precedent in similar cases has determined that the First Amendment does not apply to statutes regulating conduct, and therefore a First Amendment argument won't work, Judge Boyle found.

On Wednesday, the paralegals argued recent precedent established in the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Chiles v. Salazar "establishes that prohibitions on professional advice implicate the First Amendment and that government may not evade First Amendment scrutiny by relabeling speech as 'professional conduct.'"

As a valid First Amendment suit, the state must show that its unauthorized practice of law statute is tailored enough to survive strict scrutiny, the paralegals and nonprofit said.

Wishing only to provide a narrow scope of advice that does not involve appearing in court or handling client funds, the paralegals argued that the unauthorized-practice-of-law statute could be altered to provide a "less restrictive alternative" than the current all-out ban.

"Accepting those allegations as true, [the] plaintiffs have stated a claim under the First Amendment," the paralegals' brief states. "On remand, the state will have the opportunity to try to prove that nothing short of a criminal ban on all individualized legal advice by nonlawyers will protect consumers or the administration of justice. But it must do so with real evidence, not speculation and conjecture."

When reached for comment Thursday, Paul Sherman of the Institute for Justice, counsel for Polaski, Almendarez and the nonprofit, said a change to the law is necessary in light of growing concerns over restricted access to justice.

"North Carolina is facing an access-to-justice crisis, yet the state is telling real people with real legal problems that they are not allowed to get useful advice from experienced paralegals about court-created legal forms," he said in an email to Law360. He added that blocking self-represented litigants from accessing legal advice is unconstitutional.

"Under the First Amendment, no group is entitled to a monopoly on advice about any topic, including law," Sherman said. "For most of American history, nonlawyers were free to give legal advice outside of courtrooms, and the First Amendment protects their right to do so today."

Counsel for the defendants did not respond to a request for comment on Thursday.

Polaski, Almendarez and North Carolina Justice for All are represented by Vince Eisinger of Cranfill Sumner LLP, and Paul M. Sherman and Christian W. Lansinger of the Institute for Justice.

The defendants are represented by James W. Doggett, Tamika L. Henderson, Elizabeth Curran O'Brien and Chris D. Agosto Carreiro of the North Carolina Department of Justice, and Stephen M. Russell Jr. of Mullins Duncan Harrell & Russell PLLC.

The case is Polaski et al. v. Lee et al., case number 25-1038, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.

--Editing by Adam LoBelia.

For a reprint of this article, please contact reprints@law360.com.