ATLANTA — A committee created by the Georgia Supreme Court is recommending that the state try letting people with special legal training do limited kinds of attorney work that would give more people access to the justice system.

A three-year pilot program in three parts of the state — rural, urban, and a mid-sized community — would allow the legal community to experiment with expanding legal practice “into new areas with the urgent unmet legal needs of low-income and rural Georgians,” said the report, which was released Monday by the high court’s Study Committee on Legal Regulatory Reform.

In the program, Limited Licensed Legal Practitioners (LLLPs) would be authorized to give legal assistance to landlords and tenants and people with consumer-debt issues. The LLLPs’ would focus on general legal guidance and preparing and drafting forms and documents but would be prohibited from appearing in court or contacting other parties.

“This limited assistance has the potential to make a significant impact in specific classes of cases that are generally high volume, relatively less complex, and involve significant numbers of self-represented parties,” wrote the committee, which was established last year and led by state Supreme Court Justice Carla Wong McMillian.

The committee also recommended letting attorneys collect legal training credit hours for pro bono (free) work. The report noted that some states — including neighboring states Alabama, Florida and Tennessee — give continuing legal education credit for pro bono work. Such ongoing training is required to maintain a license to practice law.

As part of its work, the committee surveyed lawyers. Out of more than 2,200 who responded, more than half agreed that non-attorneys could help address “the civil justice gap,” the report said, although slightly fewer than half were “generally supportive” of the idea.

Even so, the committee pitched the idea to the high court, saying early access to legal services could lead to fewer legal disputes winding up in court.

LLLPs would get training in procedural and substantive law, with an emphasis on ethics and professionalism. There would be a written exam, written portfolio assessment, and observation and shadowing.

The committee noted that the Minnesota Supreme Court recently adopted recommendations from a similar three-year program there called the Legal Paraprofessionals Pilot Project.

The Minnesota pilot was limited to landlord-tenant and family cases, but the recommendation that followed the trial program was to let paraprofessionals provide legal assistance in more legal areas.

Georgia’s committee said these legal helpers could give more people access to the courts.

“The committee finds that the proposed pilot program would increase access to justice for low-income and rural Georgians while protecting the public,” the report said.