Archive for May, 2014

NALS Introduces a New Board of Directors

Friday, May 23rd, 2014

Also from Vicki Voisin, The Paralegal Mentorwe hear that NALS has a new board of directors:

The 2014-2015 NALS Board consists of Tina Boone, PLS, Mimi Mangrum, Carl Morrison, PP-SC, AACP Audrey Saxton, PP, PLS, and President, Karen McElroy, PP, PLS.This board marks a significant governance restructure, and the consolidation intends to mark great growth and collaboration on a national platform.

Vicki provides a short bio of each board member and links to youtube videos of the Board in action here.

NALA Receives Accreditation of the Certified Paralegal Program

Friday, May 23rd, 2014

Vicki Voisin, The Paralegal Mentor, posts:

The NCCA has accredited the NALA Certified Paralegal certification program for a five-year period, expiring April 30, 2019.

Founded in 1975, NALA is a professional association providing continuing education and professional certification to paralegals. Currently, over 8,900 paralegals may use the Certified Paralegal (CP) designation. The CP credential has been awarded to over 17,822 paralegals in its span of almost 40 years. The Certified Paralegal (CP) program is the first certification program accredited by NCCA which serves the legal community.

NALA has received accreditation of the Certified Paralegal program from the National Commission for Certifying Agencies (NCCA)

NALA received NCCA accreditation of the Certified Paralegal program by submitting an application demonstrating the program’s compliance with standards outlined in NCCA’s Standards for the Accreditation of Certification Programs.  NCCA is the accrediting body of the Institute for Credentialing Excellence (ICE). Since 1987, the NCCA has been accrediting certifying programs based on the highest quality standards in professional certification to ensure the programs adhere to modern standards of practice in the certification industry.

Follow the link for more on this.

California Law Advocates

Wednesday, May 21st, 2014

Lay Advocates will be in California’s future if Barbara Liss is correct. She makes a good argument for them in an email to Chere Estrin, part of which is posted by Chere on The Estrin Report. Since I’ve provided a link to the full post, I won’t re-post it here. As a teaser, I’ll just post her conclusion:

Once a journeyman, however, a full-fledged paralegal may often be as able as a lawyer in many aspects to provide considerably beneficial direct services to the public and has great potential to significantly diminish the existing gap in access to justice in California. I look forward myself to being soon able to contribute my own services in that way when I am able to test and obtain a limited license as a California Lay Advocate.

Current Trends in Paralegal Education

Tuesday, May 13th, 2014

Yesterday I posted about the AAfPE Task Force on the Future of Legal Education, just one of several current trends in paralegal education. If you are interested in those trends, check out my article in the most recent issue of Paralegal Today.

AAfPE Task Force on the Future of Legal Education

Monday, May 12th, 2014

The American Association for Paralegal Education has established a Task Force on the Future of Legal Education. The Task Force is charged to “study the provision of legal education to non-lawyers in the U.S., including the training of Limited License Legal Technicians and other models, and to make recommendations on how AAfPE and the legal profession can best address these issues.” We are fortunate that Janet Olejar has agreed to chair the task force. Janet is on the Washington State Committee developing and implementing its LLLT program. The task force has members from all five of AAfPE’s regions.

One responsibility of this task force will to research and monitor efforts to utilize well-trained non-lawyers to help address the access to justice problem in the United States, whether those efforts are taking place within state bar associations, the ABA, state legislatures, state court systems (the source of both the Washington State LLLT program and New York’s Navigator program.)

This is an important step forward for AAfPE and the future of legal education. If you are aware of efforts in your state that might be of interest to the Task Force, please let me know.

California AB 852 Update

Friday, May 9th, 2014

Barbara Liss continues to keep the LinkedIn Paralegal Group informed on developments in California where, as you likely have heard, the Bar Association’s efforts to police the unauthorized practice of law faltered when the legislation was vetoed by Governor Brown only to rise from the ashes in what one political commentator characterized as a “somewhat sneaky action”. Barbara says,

The State Bar just issued/published a summary stating that there is no opposition to AB 852 (a copy of the summary is in my LinkedIn activity — for some reason, I’m not able to attach it here; it’s also available directly at the State Bar’s website: http://board.calbar.ca.gov/docs/agendaItem/Public/agendaitem1000011937.pdf). AB 852 renews the State Bar’s attempt to gain civil penalties for pursuing all non-lawyers for the unauthorized practice of law, not merely rogue immigration consultants or foreclosure scam artists, as addressed in the summary. Once again, the language of AB 852 is broader than the bar’s stated intent.

I understand that the State Bar is frustrated because UPL, although already a criminal offense, is not something it can control directly. It is up to the appropriate prosecutors to make decisions about prosecuting UPL. Many times those prosecutors have crimes they consider more heinous on their minds. I do believe there is merit in protecting the public from UPL, but I remained puzzled and troubled by a proposal that allows an essentially private organization to enforce UPL prohibitions be recovering civil fines. The summary is not clear on the subject, but it appears the fines, which are in addition to the costs of prosecution,  would actually stay with the Bar, not go into the public coffers or to the consumers the Bar purports to be protecting. This seems to make a situation that seems to involve a conflict of interest even more so.