A similar approach could be adopted with the California paralegal and LDA workforce, who already meet the educational requirements under the Business and Professions Code. They would define the limited areas they would offer consumer services in, while avoiding specified lawyer areas. It would establish clear boundaries and the Bar would not have to license non-lawyers.

Two collective agreements could be used to accomplish this end, one representing paralegals and the other LDAs, which would expand access to justice, while avoiding creating a new field for legal technicians

Rather than create a new legal technician field from scratch, an alternative approach would be to utilize existing paralegals and LDAs who are already qualified by education under BPC 6450(c), and 6402.1, respectively.

The last Commission that restudied the issue on legal technicians in 1990 recommended that non-lawyers be authorized by the California State Supreme Court to deliver legal services in several areas. The Bar rejected the idea, one of the reasons being it would mislead the public into believing non-lawyers are licensed to practice law. This may explain why LDAs and UDAs were placed under the executive branch (Consumer Affairs) – and not the judicial branch – as recommended.

According to the Executive Summary above, it states it examined the licensing of Ontario paralegals by the LSUC. I would be curious to know if it also examined the Report to the Attorney General of Ontario, showing the Law Society processed 2,203 applications of which 1,725 were “grandparenting candidates” and 478 as transitional candidates. In short, none of those candidates had formal paralegal training, yet are delivering effective services. See “Report to the Attorney General of Ontario,” Toronto: Law Society of Upper Canada (2012), at 12.

What this indicates is the existing paralegal and LDA workforce in California has sufficient education to fill the role of LLLT without turning regulation into a bureaucracy, as it would likely drive up the costs of services. In many respects, this is what happened in Ontario, where prior to licensure independent paralegals charged $25-$50 per hour, but are now charging $100+ per hour following licensure. In turn, the working class are right back where they started, unable to afford a lawyer or paralegal!

Limited licensing should tap into the existing California workforce already qualified by education. And UPL should be limited to actual cases of harm, rather than the projected fear of harm.

Specifically, it would “materially impair” the “core functions” of the judicial branch, which has inherent powers to regulate the practice of law within the state of California. See Carmel Valley Fire Prot. Dist. v. State, 20 P.3d 533, 538 (Cal. 2001) (ruling that actions by one branch that significantly affect another are permitted, but not where those actions materially impair the core functions of the other branch).

As the administrative arm for the Supreme Court, the California State Bar is within its power to regulate legal technicians – which unlike Legal Document Assistants, Professional Fiduciaries and Immigration Consultants – would be authorized to practice law and provide legal advice in limited areas; therefore, they would fall under the powers of the judicial branch – and not the executive branch.

For the preceding reasons the concept of placing legal technicians under the executive branch is misplaced.

Apparently, not enough, lol! Informative….with the MMMMMM

Thanks for once again stressing the importance of good grammar. While we can be forgiving of typos, they certainly do not ever help the writer or make the writer look better.

It’s interesting that one of the people who commented on the article spelled “judgment” with an “e” — something that drives me crazy. However, I do admit to having to think about “its” and “it’s”. While I know how to use the words correctly, they often cause a momentary stumble when I’m writing.

Please stress the importance of good grammar — and that “spell check” is not fallible –as you continue to educate future paralegals. Vicki

My own web blog
<'http://www.foodsupplementdigest.com/is-green-tea-good-for-you/