Tags
article, attorney, bad, behavior, best, blog, chat room, conduct, ethical, ethics, firm, jamie collins, law, lawyer, learn, legal, notice, office, paralegal, report, rogue, see, social forum, top, unethical
“My silences had not protected me.
Your silence will not protect you.”
~ Audre Lorde
By: Jamie Collins
For starters, I believe 99% of paralegals are ethical people, who do their jobs with integrity, and do it well. Many of us embrace the traditional attorney-paralegal work relationship for attorneys and firms. Others choose to branch out and work responsibly as freelance or contract paralegals who work for multiple attorneys and/or firms. This post is in no way aimed at all freelance paralegals or others with non-lawyer designations, such as LLLTs (Limited License Legal Technicians), LDPs (Legal Document Preparers) or LDAs (Legal Document Assistants), or those working in a limited capacity in a specific area in the few states where that is allowed. I know many of you, am friends with several of you. You are ethical. You work for attorneys. You run high-caliber, ethical businesses and are incredibly mindful of the way you project yourself, and your paralegal business, publicly. You are not the problem.
Aside from the aforementioned 99%, the remaining (incredibly loosely estimated) 1% of paralegals, it seems, may consist of some shifty folks who tend to straddle the ethical lines. I write this post today as a rallying cry to ALL paralegals across the United States. I’m talking to every paralegal reading this post who gives a damn about the profession and our reputation as “paralegals.”
I’m here today to speak to the majority about that 1% of paralegals (hereinafter referred to as “Rogue Paralegals”) about their conduct, which is not only unconscionable, but unethical, likely illegal, and completely unbecoming of an individual who holds himself or herself out as being “a paralegal.” You know why? Because I am a paralegal, and so are the other 99%. We love who we are and what it is we do for a living. We don’t want to be affiliated with your unethical nonsense, nor do we want to ignore it for one more day.
Let’s begin with the definition of “a paralegal.” The ABA defines it as follows:
“A legal assistant or paralegal is a person, qualified by education, training or work experience who is employed or retained by a lawyer, law office, corporation, governmental agency or other entity and who performs specifically designated substantive legal work for which a lawyer is responsible.”
(Emphasis supplied). Please pay close attention to the two spots above where it sets forth the types of individuals for whom paralegals work: Lawyers. Lawyers working at law firms. Lawyers working at companies and corporations. Lawyers working at governmental agencies. And lastly, lawyers who work for other entities. The gist is that we, as “paralegals,” are to be working under the direct supervision of LAWYERS. I hope that point isn’t lost on anyone. Again, paralegals work for LAWYERS, also known as “attorneys.” And the work they perform is “legal work for which a lawyer is responsible.” At the end of the day, it is the lawyer’s work the paralegal is performing, under the lawyer’s supervision, at the behest of the lawyer, who may be paying the paralegal under a traditional model or under a freelancer model on an hourly or by project basis, but either way, the paralegal is working for an attorney; you know, the person SUPERVISING the paralegal. (If the horse ain’t dead yet, give me a few more paragraphs and grab the spurs. It. Is. On.)
There are a handful of Rogue Paralegals out there, on social media, whom we all see advertising their services to members of the general public online, disclosing fees on their websites to members of the general public (Read: not to attorneys or lawyers), targeting members of the general public (not attorneys or lawyers) with their ads to tout that they are, “cheaper than lawyers,” (because they are not lawyers), and promulgating their title as a “paralegal” to somehow falsely perpetuate their standing outside of the legal community to infer to members of the general public that said Rogue Paralegal is almost like an attorney, sort of like an attorney, could be like an attorney, works in legal and must know what he’s doing, used to work for an attorney or has loads of legal experience, owns his or her own business now, but costs a whole lot less than an attorney. The point is, these Rogue Paralegals are seeking out members of the general public as their own clients (without non-lawyer designations in the few states where those are allowed and in those limited capacity roles), without the interaction with or supervision of an attorney. Let me be clear: This. Is. Wrong.
Not maybe.
Not probably.
It’s just wrong.
It’s not a gray area. It’s not a blurry line. It’s not even a close call as to whether or not this type of thing is okay or acceptable for regular paralegals. It’s not. What these types are doing is unethical. And in nearly every state (I’m barely qualifying that, because pretty much what I’m saying is almost always, with rare exception), this solicitation of members of the general public for a paralegal to land his/her own clients rises to the level of UPL (Unauthorized Practice of Law). I know the 99% of you reading this already know exactly what UPL is, but I’ll spell it out a bit more clearly for that handful of pesky Rogue Paralegals among us who don’t seem to comprehend what that is: it’s UPL. Those dang tricky letters. When you, as a paralegal, do legal work without the supervision of an attorney for a member of the general public (do not hold a non-lawyer designation of some type, in a state where that is actually allowed) and there is no attorney involved in the work being performed for said client, even from twelve football fields away, that likely constitutes UPL.
Hear me loud and clear when I say this: If you are a paralegal working in the United States of America, your work MUST be supervised by an attorney. There are few exceptions to this. If you are a LLLT, LDP or LDA working in the states of California, Arizona, or Washington, then perhaps you can do general data entry work for clients (yes, members of the general public) or assume other administrative roles, fill in pre-approved, standardized templates, or represent clients before specific governmental agencies in a limited capacity, as your non-lawyer legal designation allows (there may be a few more specific exceptions, but NOT many). However, as an LLLT, LDP or LDA, you are doing this type of work in your capacity as an LLLT, LDP or LDA – NOT within the scope of your role as “a paralegal.” A distinction must be noted. In other words, you are a paralegal who also happens to be a LLLT, LDP or LDA. That designation is what allows you to do this type of work for members of the general public. It is the non-lawyer designation that gets you around the supervisory requirement. And it bears mentioning that the vast majority of states do not allow non-lawyer designations at the present time.
There are some Rogue Paralegals across the nation who appear to be setting and/or negotiating fees with “clients,” (as in regular members of the general public) and performing the work for those “clients” without the direct or indirect involvement or supervision of an attorney. (Remember, the attorney supervisor? We didn’t think so.) Can we prove it? Not necessarily. But that appears to be exactly what they are doing. You’ll see these folks advertising to members of the general public on Facebook, LinkedIn, Twitter or elsewhere, and listing fees for their “paralegal” legal services to clients (as in non-lawyers) on their websites. (Note: I didn’t say fees for attorneys who may hire or contract said paralegal for legal work; that’s different). A paralegal soliciting legal services to members of the general public in their capacity as a paralegal is not only unethical; it is illegal. You don’t have to look real far to figure that out.
I don’t care if they offer to pay you under the table. I don’t care if they swear they just need a standard template that you happen to know as well as your first born child. I also don’t care if you do that type of work all the time. That doesn’t make it ethical. Don’t fall into the trap.
Allow me to simplify my point with a short four question quiz:
As a “paralegal” (not in the capacity of a LLLT, LDP, LDA):
- Do you perform work without the supervision (even from afar) of an attorney?
- Do you offer legal services to members of the general public?
- Do you advertise to members of the general public?
- Do you set or negotiate fees with members of the general public for legal work that you, as a paralegal, will perform without the involvement of an attorney?
If you answered YES to any of these questions—or good lawd help us all, “yes,” to all of them—you may be conducting yourself under the Rogue Paralegal Model. (That just became a legitimate term, people, because I just made it one. That’s why. That’s the RPM and pretty darn appropriate for those fast and slippery folks driving themselves into unethical territory and taking our reputations right along with them.)
It is making me absolutely CRAZY that we aren’t circling the paralegal wagons and closing rank on these types of folks and doing what we can to alert all other paralegals, especially newbies, that this type of conduct is NOT okay, because, quite candidly, it’s not. It is a huge problem. Not just for the Rogue Paralegals and their “clients,” but for every paralegal. It causes credibility and reputation concerns for ALL of us. The traditional paralegals and the legitimate freelancers. Me, you, and every paralegal walking down Ethical Paralegal Boulevard with coveted visions of a big bonus, one-way ticket to a beach cabana with an on-call masseuse, a drink fetcher, and a dream.
Perhaps you find yourself wondering if there is some gray area or loophole that allows this type of thing. You wonder, “Maybe in his or her state, paralegals are allowed to practice in x, y, or z law without the supervision of an attorney.” You think to yourself, “Well, I don’t know if freelancers are maybe allowed to do this type of thing.” These folks will act utterly confident, almost emboldened. There is no gray area to be played, people. It’s an easy thing to look up. There is no loophole for these types to belly crawl through, although they seem to crawl beneath the barbwire, all the same. What these Rogue Paralegals are doing is unethical. It is also illegal. You should not stand for it. And I shouldn’t, either.
Today, I’m not here talking to the unethical 1%. I’m here to address the other 99% of individuals who are proud as hell to work as paralegals. I stand among you. I’m with you. I am here to issue a strong call to action. The next time you see this type of unethical conduct taking place online, especially on social media sites, take a stand. STAND UP and say that you believe the behavior, comments, or advertisements may be unethical. Follow up with a comment to ask whether or not this lovely person is holding his or her “services” out to members of the general public and working without the supervision of an attorney.
What will one comment change? Perhaps, not much. But when several reputable paralegals begin to STAND UP, their voices ring loudly, in unison, all throughout the nation, and their message is not lost. It may fall on the deaf ears of a Rogue Paralegal operating under a RPM (Rogue Paralegal Model), but other paralegals will proudly stand up with you. Newbies will realize and recognize this conduct is unethical and avoid it like a deadline at 4:59 on a Friday. You don’t have to lash out at these types. Be cordial. Be professional. Carry yourself in a dignified and respectful manner online. But be willing to step up. Be willing to say it may be unethical. Be prepared to be proud enough of what you do as a paralegal to preserve the integrity of the profession and all it stands for (or in this case, against). The reputation of every paralegal depends upon you being willing to take a stand. The reputation of the profession is on the line. You, me and every paralegal strolling down the paralegal pathway needs to give a damn. We must rise up, and make our voices heard, when we see unethical folks roaming through our profession with their dirty feet. We will not stand for it. Not that we ever did. But we will not sit silently or idly by any longer.
Report unethical conduct to your local paralegal association’s Ethics Director (that’s me, in Indiana), a national Ethics Board, or the proper authorities in your state, which could include the bar association, disciplinary commission, or attorney general’s office. If unsure who to approach, ask a respected paralegal.
Rogue Paralegals – know this: We see you. We’re looking right at you. And we won’t turn away. We’ll greet you on the corner of every social media site and will call out your unethical and illegal behavior the next time we see it. We will educate every newbie paralegal across the nation that we will not stand for you potentially dragging them down with you. They deserve better than that. Actually, we all do.
And the gift of our silence has come to an end.
It’s time for the good paralegals to stand UP.
And the Rogue Paralegals to stand down.
Sincerely,
Jamie Collins
(& the other 99%)
We are THE UPRISING. The whisper, the voice, the echo, the movement.
p.s.
Happy to join any paralegal task force who wants me, anywhere in the nation. I can be reached at: theparalegalsociety@gmail.com. And I can bring paralegal leaders from all across the nation with me.
And it bears mentioning that whether you are a paralegal who is pro-regulation and pro-autonomy or one who is against it, this is an issue for all of us.
The Paralegal Society @TPSparalegals
#TheUprising
_____
Hey Paralegals: Let’s send this message LOUD and clear throughout Paralegal Nation. We’re STANDING UP. Right here, right now. Like and share this post to help us move this important movement forward, paralegals! Leave a comment.
Until next time, keep it ethical. Keep your eyes open. Drink the caffeinated beverages of glory, protect the esquires (without killing them), and rock that role with the best of ’em. We know you will.
The Paralegal Society™ 
Right on, Jamie!! We’ve worked too long and too hard to establish ourselves as respected professionals. Rogues can and are doing more damage than most real paralegals realize.
I too am happy to join any paralegal task force, anywhere in the nation, that needs assistance. I can be reached at: pjstarr@starrparalegals.com.
In the last four years, I’ve had at least four calls regarding paralegals working for the public. It boils my blood. They tell their clients “I’m a certified paralegal” and then charge them fees to prepare work and direct all of the work themselves. In two cases we had to clean up probates because it wasn’t done properly costing the client more money and time. In fact, I just had a similar call yesterday…paralegal has prepared all of the documents and suddenly stopped working with her. In another case, it was a “consultant” who prepared a contract to exclude two siblings from a probate who were in fact entitled to assets, and then provided in the Contract that she (the consultant) would be the real property manager for an apartment building in the probate. Didn’t even bother calling herself a paralegal. Just touted her services on the internet. In a separate case, we have an “Estate Planning Services” provider who is now in hiding because he tried to present to the Court that he was the Trustee, may have stolen some money from the Trustor, and was trying to control the assets. He actually showed up in Court. He closed his business and his “address” for the case is a Mailbox Etc place. It goes beyond Rogue paralegals and its getting worse.
Pingback: The Empowered Paralegal » Blog Archive » An Important and Well-written Rallying Cry
Not only will I NEVER work directly with the public, I absolutely refuse to send any documents directly to the attorney’s client until the attorney reviews and directs me to do so. I have had to remind a few attorney clients of that bright line requirement, e.g., they must review and approve all work product, even if it is based on a form they provided. Ethics are vital.
Carmella Greacen
Founder: GreacenStation.com
As a contract paralegal, I receive about 30 calls a month from private citizens seeking legal help or legal advice. I remind them to understand that in Texas, it is a crime for a paralegal to assist or to provide legal advice to the general public.
I also remind them that if they are able to hire a paralegal who is willing to provide legal services to them without a licensed lawyer being involved that they are taking a chance on losing their money.
I keep my state’s lawyers referral service hereby, as well as my local legal aid’s number. I do tell them that most of the legal documents they may need are located at our State’s Supreme Court’s website or that they can go to the law library at our local college.
I have been offend $9,000 by one individual to assist them with an adoption (they called me multiple times) and I had to tell them that if they continued to call me after I had told them that I was not going to assist them, I would report them to my local law enforcement for telephone harassment before they would stop calling me.
I have worked to hard for my degree and my certification. My company is an ethical company and I refuse to violate my professional code of conduct. Even though we paralegals are not considered an officer of the court, I still hold myself to the same standards as those of my employing attorneys and I always will.
Thank you, Michael, for acting ethically and responsibly. In the past two years, the firm I work for has been involved with five cases that involved cleaning up messes that rogue paralegals have caused. As of today, the third has come to resolution. In my eyes, this has become an epidemic. I know and respect quite a few legitimate freelance paralegals. They work within the confines of the law and would never misrepresent their authority to a member of the public. They are like you. But I can say I get many calls that begin with “I thought I could save some and went to a paralegal who prepared….” The story usually continues with a recounting of errors and a plea for help in fixing their mess. I get these calls at least monthly if not more. It’s frustrating seeing people being taken advantage of by these rogues who are in our profession. So thank you, Michael, and all ethically acting freelance paralegals.
Add me in the list of paralegals willing to work with and enforce the paralegal regulations. I am a former UPL investigator for the state of Texas. In fact, we paralegals need to start our own paralegal enforcement agency in each state.
I could not agree more with what has been said. I actually saw a sign when I was on my way to work a few years ago with just a first name and phone number advertising paralegal services in Northern Maryland. I contacted our Attorney General’s Office as well as our Attorney Grievance Commission about that sign. The sign was down that afternoon when I was on my way home. The person who was advertising has been banned from ever promoting herself as a paralegal and can never work as a paralegal in Maryland. I found out that she was offering legal advice to the general public and not in an area that a paralegal may practice in Maryland, i.e. Before an Administrative agency like unemployment or social security. So there goes 1 of the 1%!
Athough I like your article as a fellow paralegal , I am an independent contractor paralegal in N.Y. but I have many clients who are attorneys and title companies that hire me for one thing or another. I can only provide certain services as non attorney to public like as a notary public for example. I offer additional services that are not considered legal practice. Selling legal forms is not illegal as long as u don’t fill them out for them. Typing service is not illegal but they have to tell you the information. Doing legal research is not legal practice as long as u are only providing the information not interpreting it. You never interpret the law and a always refer to attorney for legal advice or interpretation of the law. Judgment enforcement is not only for lawyers. Any can do it themselves if they know what to do. I do it but I only rep myself as it’s ownership is assigned over to me. I don’t rerp any one I’m certified in this area plus 10 yrs of legal firm experience. Its not debt collections either. But an indep paralegal on their own can sell other types of services in a business model so that is incorrect but as long as they are not providing legal services that only attorneys are slated to do in your State or services that must be overseen by an attorney in my state wills an probate must be overseen by attorneys and you have to be licensed by ny to do any financial planning for others not family members. I do financial services products such as credit repair help, selling educational financial and legal products, But there are advertising rules in NY when you do. So you have to follow your states law always. Not every independent paralegal is rogue. I know the laws in my state, my roles and found a way to create a business model that works and was given a NYS dept of education grant to promote me in N.Y. so if ny endorsed me, I’m in compliance because lawyers are on th at committee. Yes as paralegals we need to be very careful and always have to follow our states rules. But being independent does not mean you are careless, non compliant and rogue. I think calling out the ones who are doing it wrong is important if the consumers were compromized and especially if it did them harm.
Great article Jamie. I work as a freelance paralegal for attorneys and believe it or not I will on occasion have an attorney contact me and ask if I can help someone that they called them that does not have the money for an attorney. Needless to say I have to remind them that I work only for licensed attorneys and not for the general public. I will tell the attorney that they can offer limited scope representation to that individual such as document preparation and./or consultation and that the attorney can hire me to prepare the documents as long as I am paid by, and supervised by, the attorney.
Ms. Collins’ article attempts to mischaracterize paralegals who choose not to work in traditional settings under a lawyer, as rogue paralegals.
But nothing could be further from the truth, especially when we factor in there are non-lawyers with paralegal credentials practicing before federal administrative and state agencies, which specifically authorize them to represent and advocate cases on behalf of clients when permitted by the agency. See 5 U.S.C. § 555(b).
Even the State of California carves out an exception for paralegals, “representing clients before a state or federal administrative agency if that representation is permitted by statute, court rule, or administrative rule or regulation.” See Cal. Bus. Prof. Code Section 6450(a). Thus, the author’s presumption the exception only applies to California LDAs, is entirely erroneous.
It follows a non-lawyer practicing before a federal or state agency who has earned a paralegal credential will not only demonstrate a higher educational standard – than the person with no formal paralegal training – but it will go a long way to ensure a base level of competency in connection with representing clients before federal and state administrative agencies.
Ms. Collins’ apparent reliance on the ABA definition of a paralegal is seriously misplaced, because the ABA is a regulatory body of law schools with a focus on lawyers – and not paralegals. In that regard, a much better definition is found with the National Federation of Paralegal Associations, stating:
“[A] Paralegal is a person, qualified through education, training or work experience to perform substantive legal work that requires knowledge of legal concepts and is customarily, but not exclusively, performed by a lawyer. This person may be retained or employed by a lawyer, law office, governmental agency or other entity or may be authorized by administrative, statutory or court authority to perform this work….”
Please pay close attention to the part that says, “…perform substantive legal work that requires knowledge of legal concepts and is customarily, but not exclusively, performed by a lawyer.”
The NFPA’s definition is instructive here because it was the first national association to commit to the word, “paralegal,” unlike other national and state associations catering to legal assistants.
Furthermore, the flawed position Ms. Collins’ takes on UPL is not one supported by the U.S. Department of Justice, which has pursued claims against the ABA in respect of its anti-competitive practices against non-lawyers. The courts have also rejected this extreme UPL position concluding states are preempted under the Supremacy Clause from regulating who practices before federal agencies. See generally Sperry v. Florida ex rel Florida Bar, 373 U.S. 379 (1963).
As such, the issue here is not whether practicing outside the supervision of lawyer is rogue, but rather if a person possessing paralegal credential can practice before federal and state administrative agencies, and if he or she can reference such credential. The answer is a resounding, yes!
Therefore, what appears to be a “Rallying Cry Against Rogue Paralegals” seems to be nothing more than a harsh and acrimonious sentence to those paralegals who choose to work for themselves, as prescribed by law.
I believe you may have missed the portion of Jamie’s article where it speaks to the exception for paralegals performing work before state and federal agencies as permitted by law. These are NOT the Rogue Paralegals of which she speaks.
The thing I like best about this column is that it’s a great reminder to those of us in the legal trenches who may, from time to time, be tempted to step a little over the line at times, just to get things done when all supervising attorneys seem to be overburdened/unresponsive. Thanks for another great article, Jamie!
The article’s agenda seems clear in arguing for the subordination of paralegals to lawyers by mischaracterizing paralegals who choose to work independently. It does so by relying on the same 1% argument occupiers of Wall Street utilized in order to target a 1% minority; and, secondarily, by hinging the definition of paralegals on the ABA, an organization that is not a regulator of paralegals.
Yet, the article provides no data or evidence to support that 1% of paralegals are actually engaged in unethical conduct giving rise to UPL. And, even if such data or evidence existed, we would find many states have moved away from targeting non-lawyers for UPL, because of the DOJ and FTC investigations into the ABA’s attempt to define the practice of law, which would have negatively impacted non-lawyers providing services directly to consumers. See “Comments On The American Bar Association’s Proposed Model Definition Of The Practice Of Law.”
Let me be clear here, I am not arguing against paralegals choosing to be subordinate to lawyers, but it does not necessarily reflect on those paralegals who choose to work independently, despite the false 1% paralegal premise the author uses to arrive at a flawed conclusion.
The premise is flawed because it attempts to speak on behalf of 99% of the paralegal profession regarding the targeted 1%, which is problematic given there is no single 99% coherent paralegal voice. Quite the contrary, paralegals come in many shapes and sizes and work in a variety of settings with some of them pushing the boundaries, which may clash with traditional notions of paralegal supervision.
Without reaching the issue of individual cases of paralegals who may or not be involved in unethical conduct, I believe paralegals exploring and pushing the boundaries is healthy for the the development and growth of the profession.
I worked independently for various attorneys for several years. I chose the firms I wanted to work for and the rates I chose to be paid. The clients were still THEIR clients, they hired and paid the attorney and the work I did had to be ordered and reviewed by the attorney and have his or her signature on it. Furthermore, if there was ever a problem, it was the attorney’s license that was at stake.
When federal and state agencies allow paralegals/non attorneys to act as advocates for clients, those advocates are still subject to the rules of the agency before whom they appear.
We are all subordinate to someone in the legal system, whether we are lawyers, paralegals, advocates, judges or are promulgating laws or issuing agency decisions. Even the members of the U.S. Supreme Court are subordinate in the legal field because any decision they make can be reviewed and changed by congress making new laws (so long as those laws are constitutional).
This is not about what role you play in the legal system or about lawyers vs. paralegals vs. advocates, etc. It is about following the rules that apply to your role, whatever that may be or changing the rules through legitimate means…like we do every day in the legal field.
As a paralegal who specialized in bankruptcy for most of my career, I can tell you that the Department of Justice takes a pretty dim view of non attorneys who step over the UPL line in that particular area of law and those who do it are prosecuted, fined, required to pay restitution, and even jailed for it. And their “clients'” lives are often devestated in the process
So if Rogue Paralegals want to follow in their footsteps (or participate in any situation in which they risk violating laws or rules against UPL) whether knowingly or unknowingly, then they should be prepared to suffer the consequences. And the consequences suck, not just for the person who is commiting UPL but for those whose cases they a screw up and whose lives they ruin I was never wiling to risk my livelihood or reputation or any attorney’s practice or client’s wellbeing by crossing that line.
If you feel that clients in the U. S. should be able to directly retain paralegals or other non attorney professioonals for certain legal related work beyond what is currently legitimately allowed, then you need to join a group that advocates for that and go through the process of making it happen by bringing your case before the bar, the agencies and the legislative bodies. That is the legitimate means of leveling the playing field for legal professionals and reducing costs to clients without sacrificing the quality of the legal work they pay for. Groups working on this issue do exist and Canadian paralegals have led the charge.
But also keep in mind that the use of paralegals by law firms to assist in client matters does allow us to really make a difference for those we help and effectively lowers the overall cost of legal services provided by law firms. Maybe the cost is still higher than it should be from a client perspective, but my experience tells me that you really do get what you pay for as a client. And those who commit UPL often know just enough to be extremely dangerous to the poor unsuspecting people who hire them.
Additionally, as specialized and complex as the legal field has become, paralegals who work with attorneys (at least for a portion of their careers) also tend to be better educated and more experienced in their respective fields.
Does any of this mean you can’t or shouldn’t work as an independent contractor at some point in your career? Not at all. I did it and it was a great experience. But there are right ways and wrong ways to do it. And those who do it and potentially endanger or actually harm the people who pay them for their work need to be called out and reported to the appropriate authorities.
“And those who do it and potentially endanger or actually harm the people who pay them for their work need to be called out and reported to the appropriate authorities.”[Christie Wojtena]
Interestingly, the State of California found no such evidence of the harm you speak of despite investigating the matter through numerous committees. And, in a 1990 report, the California State Bar’s Commission on Legal Technicians found that 76% percent of consumers were satisfied with the assistance received from independent paralegals, as compared to lawyers who received a 67% rating. “STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA, COMMISSION ON LEGAL TECHNICIANS REPORT 5” (1990).
In 2002, the DOJ and FTC went much further on the issue of harm concluding:
“The agencies have not seen any factual evidence demonstrating that consumers are actually hurt by the availability of lay services. Many of the proposed state bar agency unauthorized practice of law opinions that our agencies have reviewed set forth no factual evidence and little evaluation of how the ability of lay services had actually hurt consumers.”
Moreover, the DOJ and FTC found many professions would be impacted as a result of UPL, because providing legal advice is incidental to those professions. Further, it would reduce competition from non-lawyers and consumers would likely pay higher prices and face a smaller range of service options.
See “Comments On The American Bar Association’s Proposed Model Definition Of The Practice Of Law.”
Hardly surprising the DOJ and FTC findings on harm mirror what Deborah Rhode’s research has been saying all along, that although the organized bar has often suggested the campaign against lay practice arose as a result of a public demand, the consensus among historians is to the contrary.
When we factor in most paralegals have undergone some form of legal training, there is even less likelihood of this sector harming consumers over that sector of non-lawyers with no legal training, since the educational standard has been raised significantly since 1970s, as paralegal programs gained popularity.
So, if you have some actual data and evidence of this 1% of the rogue paralegal population harming the public, then by all means produce it.
So what is the real story behind paralegals pushing the boundaries?
As California and the DOJ and FTC uncovered, there is no evidence non-lawyers are harming the public when they perform routine legal services or otherwise provide legal advice incidental to their profession.
Following the 2008 crash and minimal GDP growth since then, law firms continue to down size or shut their doors altogether. Disruptive technologies are challenging traditional notions of delivering legal services to the public, and the popularization of college and vocational paralegal programs has seen a surplus of paralegals entering the workforce with a minimal demand for those services. In turn, as paralegals leave the traditional law office setting for a corporate or small business setting, employers will place increasing demands that they utilize their training and skill sets to perform routine legal tasks.
In effect, the main national paralegal associations (NALA, NALS and NFPA) will likely fare much like the major record label industry did in 2000, as recording artists left the majors and formed their own labels to sell their products directly to the public. It is quite conceivable as paralegal associations head into similar extinction, new associations will emerge catering to paralegals providing routine legal tasks to employers, or directly to the public.
The one possible exception is the NFPA, because by its definition of the term “paralegal,” appears to have not locked itself into a dead end definition, instead recognizing legal tasks are not performed exclusively by lawyers, thus allowing for the potential growth and development of the paralegal field. In doing so, the NFPA seems to be aligned with current market dynamics driving the consumer demand for affordable legal services; rather than lawyer dynamics centered on the limitation of paralegals in order to minimize competition.
Ostensibly, national associations could see a steady decline over the next decade in their influence over the paralegal field, mostly because they are out of step with the market dynamics and disruptive technologies that are shaping the legal industry of the 21st century. In some ways, it is analogous to the Kodak company being unable to transition from color photo film, to digital cameras, despite having developed early prototypes of the digital camera.
Here, paralegal associations are apparently locked into a dead end definition of paralegals, because they are unable to transition to current market demands shaping the legal industry, where like recording artists, will leave the majors (associations) and market their skills sets directly to employers or the public.
C. Smith you said it all. Thank you.
A good Paralegal must stay in touch with learning. Thinking. Being up-to-date with legal practice and business trends. And, should NEVER be afraid to use their brain. Independently of the attorney(s). Not waiting to be spoon fed. This is the very definition of intelligence. Any truly talented Paralegal needs to be able to think separate of the attorneys she or he works with and for.
No one argues that attorneys hold the legal license to practice law. And THEY are the ‘sworn Officers of the Court(s)’ in the States in which they are licensed to practice. BUT … Older, highly experienced paralegals (such as myself) are trying to stay alive. Earn money. Pay bills. We have invested, some of us, up to 40 (forty) years into a profession which has essentially become weakened by greedy attorney-run ‘businesses.’ Yes, businesses. Who by the way, make an entire life out of their work. So should a Paralegal be able to do so. I worked as a ‘partner’ to certain attorneys. They said it. I knew it. I did not represent myself and never do, as an attorney.
BUT … I LOVE my paralegal skills, knowledge, training, experiences. I miss using them. And … getting a good ‘position’ these days is tougher than ever. Firms and traditional entities (corporations businesses, etc.), which used to hire Paralegals are just not doing that so much or so willingly any longer. And, rather, it is always ‘cheaper’ (they think) to hire less experienced but still experienced Paralegals. Or contracted staff. No benefits to pay. Get rid of them without the liability. One can be Certificated, Registered, whatever. I am college-degreed AND Certificated. Before starting my work many years ago in a ‘top ten law firm.’
BUT after the 2008 recession, I starting losing billable work. To Associates many of whom I trained. As a top earner and billler, I was gotten rid of. The Associates coulde be billed out for more dollars.
In this very website, dating back to ? 2011, there is an article by an experience ‘old school’ Paralegal who shares some history. History that ‘newer’ Paralegals need to read and understand. I can also add: I helped make my law firms rich and successful. I was known in Courts, and Judges recognized my initials on Court-entered draftings.
Stand behind your fellow Paralegals. And therefore, the profession. It IS in trouble!!! Stop beating up on people who are trying to find a way to advance the profession. We are all on diffefrent pathways now. Unite. Do NOT divide.
HK
well said HK
Reblogged this on Michelle Griswold and commented:
This is a great article on paralegal professionalism. As paralegals we strive for professionalism and being ethical is of utmost importance always.
I get lots of calls from potential clients who get frustrated when I tell them I can not help them. This article highlights why.
this is a great article. i am an LDA in California, and a member of CALDA, and it is nice to see our portion of the non-lawyer industry included. i blog all the time about ethics on my site. i am currently building websites for other non-lawyers, and so this article is refreshing to find given the concurrence between the views expressed and my own. i was under the impression however that most states had a non-lawyer designation/registration parallel to the LDA in California. I am just doing research for my project. my website does however fit the other non-non-lawyer professions like process server, notary, etc. as well.