The Empowered Paralegal

The Law Society in Britain has commissioned a study to see whether there should be a paralegal “qualification” in Britain. The legal profession in Britain, despite our common heritage, is quite different than our. A law degree is the equivalent of a four-year undergraduate degree here. However, it qualifies the holder to enter an additional educational program which in turn qualifies the graduate to contract for final training with an existing law practice. Those who complete the training then qualify for status as either barristers or solicitors governed by The Law Society.There is another route for qualification as a legal administrator. According to a comment to the Lawyer.com story on this new study, “ILEX is the professional body representing around 22,000 qualified and trainee Legal Executives, and is recognised by the Ministry of Justice as one of the three core routes to becoming a qualified lawyer.”

One problem is that there are about twice as many law degree graduates each year as there are training slots, leaving a large number of graduates who will not qualify any time soon as either solicitors or barristers. Many of these persons create their own legal service and call themselves paralegals. As noted in a previous post, in Britain the public can choose their representation to a larger degree than here where only the licensed attorney can practice law.

However, there as in most other jurisdictions there is a tension between the goals of providing affordable legal services to the public and protecting the public from incompetent service providers. Thus, one possible reason for the new study is concern over protecting the public from incompetent service provides. Another, as noted in one comment to the story might be that The Law Society is trying to protect solicitors’ turf.

I also previously reported on a spat in Britain between the Institute of Paralegals (IoP) and the National Association of Licensed Paralegals (NALP) over who has launched the country’s first national training framework.” According to today’s story, IoP has endorsed this study:

IoP’s chief executive James O’Connell said: “This a very positive step for the future of paralegals in this country. They are often undertrained and underrecognised and being recognised by such a big player as the Law Society is just the type of backing the profession needs.”

Apparently the spat still exists. One of the comments, which responds not only to the story but to other comments, is from Amanda Hamilton. I had the pleasure of meeting Amanda and observing her teaching a class while in London researching paralegal professionalism there last summer. (IoP never responded to my requests, so I must confess to a bit of bias on behalf of NALP. Also NALP is a member of NFPA.) Here’s Amanda’s comment, which I am including in full because it fairly clearly (and I believe accurately) states the present state of affairs in Britain:

Referring to ‘Anonymous’ (30th July 12.56pm), we would like to point out that there are no such organisations as ‘The Licensed Institute of Paralegals’, ‘The National Paralegal Institute’ or the ‘Association of National Paralegals’.
There are only two professional bodies for paralegals: The NALP (The National Association of Licensed Paralegals) is the leading body and has been established for 23 years. The other is The Institute of Paralegals (IoP) formerly known as The Paralegal Association and formed around 2004.
We would also like to point out that the IOP’s ‘national framework’ is not the first ever framework for a paralegal career. The NALP has run one since 1989. It has been the forerunner for paralegal career development and its foundation qualification, the Higher Diploma in Paralegal Studies, has been (in the recent past) nationally accredited and recognised by The National Open College Network from 1995- 2002 and has been run by Further Education Colleges up and down the country.
More importantly NALP has recently gained Awarding Body accreditation and status from the Office of the Qualifications and Examinations Regulator (OfQUAL), the watchdog for qualifications in England. Furthermore the NALP’s Post Graduate Diploma in Paralegal Practice (the PPC), is specifically designed for Law Graduates to enable them to obtain the necessary understanding of legal practice (because a Law Degree does not cover any of it), has been successfully running for ten years and the NALP Higher Diploma (procedural law content) been incorporated (as an option) in Sunderland University’s Law Degree Programme for the past six years. NALP will of course be working closely with The Law Society in connection with its proposed study and is already working with Skills For Justice in a similar vain. Those persons who have responded negatively, above, to the need for Paralegals to be qualified are either not in the profession or do not want to improve their careers. Qualifications are very necessary as the majority of Paralegals do virtually the same work as Solicitors. The ‘pen pushing office fodder’ referred to by some are not Paralegals but merely administrative clerks.

Share on Facebook

I’ve been traveling and have had little internet access so posting has been, and will be, sparse for awhile. Among the many emails accumulated in my Inbox is on from Harry Kopyto. You may recall from previous posts, Mr. Kopyto is challenging the regulation of paralegals in Ontario, primarily because the regulation is by the Law Society, which is comprised primarily of lawyers and also regulates attorneys (although several paralegals were recently elected to the Law Society’s governing board.) Mr. Kopyto does not view the licensing and regulation of paralegals in Ontario as a step forward for the paralegal profession, but an attempt by attorneys to squelch competition. This effort, he contends, has the effect of diminishing access to justice for those without significant financial resources.

The article Mr. Kopyto sent me is too long to post here, but some excerpts follow. Please keep in mind that I have not vetted the statements for accuracy, Mr. Kopyto’s statements are likely to favor a particular position, and I am not endorsing that position by printing the excerpts.

The main rationale that the LSUC has given for its takeover of paralegals is the fact that “the public interest” requires it to ensure that incompetent paralegals are not foisted on the public market.  What the LSUC has done (and what is not apparent to the public) is that, as a result of bylaws passed by it immediately after the takeover ― the Law Society has basically eliminated paralegals as a profession able to provide a wide variety of services in competition with lawyers.

Prior to the enactment of the Access to Justice Act and the amendments to the Law Society Act, paralegals provided a wide range of services to the public.  They did so effectively and, according to former High Court Judge Peter Cory, at “significantly lower fees” then charged by lawyers.  In fact, within about 30 years, the number of paralegals working in Ontario flourished from a few hundred to an estimated 4,000. Many paralegals prepared wills, prepared incorporations, prepared leases, acted in undefended divorces, did simple real estate transactions and engaged in Family Court representation — subject to prior approval.   Some of their work was in “gray” areas, but unauthorized practice prosecutions were few and successful ones were even fewer.

What do the bylaws say?  Specifically, they restrict paralegals to provide legal advice only with respect to Small Claims Court, provincial offences, 6 months maximum criminal court matters and federal and provincial tribunals.  That’s it.  No more.  Everything else is verboten.  The bylaws thus further entrench lawyers’ fixed–price justice monopoly. An example?  While permitting paralegals to negotiate motor vehicle accident claims, the bylaws ban them from cases involving “catastrophic injuries” where large fees are to be earned.

No rationale is given for preserving this lucrative turf for lawyers alone.

Lawyers’ greed trumps affordable justice when lawyers control the game and hold all the aces.   The LSUC has tried to masquerade its dictatorial control over their twenty-first century serfs. In reality, paralegals have been disenfranchised inasmuch as they are  “members” of the LSUC who can’t vote for benchers.    The much-touted elections of paralegals to their LSUC Paralegal Standing Committee is a joke: the Committee is only administrative.  Similarly, the LSUC’s appointment of two paralegals to Convocation where they are outnumbered by 83 to 2 is a coup d’oeil, an illusion of democracy.

The issue is not yes or no to regulation.  Of course, regulation is in the public interest.  But regulation by whom?  Regulation for what purpose?  Regulation in whose interest?  And why regulation by a competing profession?

Share on Facebook

Final exams and publication deadlines have delayed posts on such interesting topics as my discussions with Sallie Davis of Tulane University about that institution’s paralegal education program and with Vivienne Lawack-Davids, Executive Dean of Law at Nelson Mandela Metropolitan University in Port Elizabeth, South Africa, about paralegalism in South Africa and a possible paralegal education program at that university. However, this article headlined “Lawyers, paralegals mobilize for skirmish at law society AGM” could not pass without mention:

Family lawyers and paralegals are mobilizing for a clash at the Law Society of Upper Canada’s annual general meeting this week over the expansion of paralegal practice into family law, an issue one lawyer believes is putting “the future of the legal profession” at stake.

‘This isn’t just another sleepy AGM. What’s behind it is the future of the law society and the future of the legal profession,’ says James Morton.

A motion on the agenda for the meeting would, if passed, require the law society to report on the possibility of expanding paralegal practice to include “preparing family law documents, representing before the family court for certain matters, drafting incorporations, and drafting uncontested divorces,” a proposal that’s left family lawyers up in arms.

Now both sides are scrambling to gather enough supporters to pack the meeting and win the vote, which will be decided by a simple count of hands on Wednesday with no proxies allowed.

Nevertheless, a note from the secretary of Convocation this morning pointed out the motion isn’t binding. A law society bylaw “provides that no motion carried at the annual general meeting is binding on Convocation,” said
Katherine Corrick. “If passed, Convocation is required to consider the motion within six months.

“The paralegal scope of practice is an issue entirely within the authority of Convocation. Of course, an examination of this issue would include wide consultation with lawyers and paralegals.”

Follow the link for more.

I have previously posted on the concept of paralegals and lawyers as competitors rather than the legal team we have here in the U.S.  My hope is that we may yet find a middle ground where paralegals gain the maximum ability to aleviate the access to justice problem in the United States.

Share on Facebook

We’ve been following the effort of Ontario to intertwine the attorney and paralegal professions in their system of regulation. Those efforts include making paralegals part of the regulating body. Earthtime.org reports that the first elections have been held:

Ontario’s licensed paralegals cast their votes in the first-ever paralegal election last month, electing five of the 39 candidates nominated to run for the Law Society’s Paralegal Standing Committee. The committee plays an integral role in the governance and regulation of licensed paralegals throughout the province.

The elected paralegals are as follows: Cathy Corsetti, Paul Dray, Michelle L. Haigh, Kenneth C. Mitchell, and Robert Burd.

“This election marks a significant milestone in paralegal regulation,” says Law Society Treasurer W. A. Derry Millar. “The Paralegal Standing Committee plays a critical role in ensuring that the paralegal profession is regulated in the public interest. We congratulate the elected committee members and look forward to working with them.” …

Ontario became the first jurisdiction in North America to licence paralegals in 2007. Almost 3,000 paralegals in Ontario are now licensed by the Law Society. Licensed paralegals can help people with matters in small claims court, as well as traffic matters, tribunal hearings and minor criminal matters

Share on Facebook

While others are focused on Vancouver, I continue to follow events in Ontario. There Harry Kopyto is challenging the system that regulates paralegals. I’ve mentioned Harry before and the regulatory system has been the subject of several posts here.

I’m not really very interested in Harry himself. Rather it is the way this story highlights the various factors that must be considered in paralegal regulation. On the one hand we have this:

The provincial government vested the law society with the responsibility to govern paralegals over concerns that the public was exposed to the risk of harm at the hands of unscrupulous or incompetent practitioners.

“We heard lots of different horror stories,” says Steven Rosenhek, chairman of the Ontario Bar Association’s paralegal task force, adding that complaints against paralegals “came up fairly frequently and sometimes with disastrous results.”

The prevailing lack of any regulatory structure meant paralegals were free to operate without any disciplinary mechanism or minimum standards of education.

On the other, this:

In barring paralegals from family law, the current rules have made a dysfunctional system even worse, Kopyto charges.

Particularly vulnerable, he says, are women in divorce and custody litigation who don’t qualify for legal aid but can’t afford a lawyer.
“Now, these women are streaming into court without any representation and they’re being eaten alive by the [high-priced lawyers] of the world,” Kopyto says.

“It’s a zoo down there. People who have clearly meritorious cases are losing them.”

Ontario decided in favor of public protection over access to justice:

“There’s always tension between access to justice and public protection,” he [the chairman of the Ontario Bar Association’s paralegal task force] says. “We said and we will continue to say the paramount concern is public protection.”

These two factors are also at work in the debate over paralegal regulation in the United States. There is also concern here, as in Ontario, over disbarred attorneys practicing as paralegals.

 However, we must also keep in mind that Ontario’s program was developed in different context for the role of the paralegal, many of whom had practices independent of attorneys unlike here where paralegals are required to have attorney supervision. In fact, paralegals were (and are) often viewed as competitors to attorneys.  And therein may lie the virtue of Harry’s challenge. He states he is not opposed to paralegal regulation, but objects to the paralegal profession being regulated by the Law Society, i.e., by the lawyer profession with which it competes.

This is a very different perspective than that considered in a previous post here, which celebrated the paralegal profession being brought into the Law Society as a recognition of paralegals as  legal professionals. There is, apparently some merit to that perspective.  Judi Simms, president of the Paralegal Society of Canada, states on the one hand, “The only thing it’s accomplished so far is it’s restricted our capability to practise,” but also says “For many paralegals, particularly those who had established practices in small claims, landlord and tenant law, and traffic matters, regulation has legitimized their functions and advanced them professionally.” According to the most recent report in the Law Times News, “Simms, in fact, praises the LSUC for its “spectacular job” in bringing paralegals into the fold.”

I suspect that even in the context of competition, there are more similarities between the paralegal/lawyer professions in Ottawa and the United States that might immediately meet the eye. See for example the discussion here and on the Paralegal Today discussion forum, on Combating the “Hire an Out-of-work Lawyer as a Paralegal” Trend. “Independent” paralegals also claim that fear of competition and a desire for a monopoly is behind the efforts of bar associations to shut down businessess such as Efrem Martin’s.

So this competition in Canada should remain of interest to United States paralegals as more than just a spectator sport. I hope in the next few weeks to take a closer look at California’s regulatory system both in terms of its mechanisms and its implementations. Anyone who has a fact based opinion on either is invited to contact me at theempoweredparalegal@live.com.

Share on Facebook

As I wandered somewhat aimlessly through the Paralegal Society of Ontario’s website, my attention was caught by a link for the “Civility Forum Tour.”  This was of interest to a great degree because of my recent post regarding civility on paralegal discussion forums. Clicking the link,  I was brought to this notice:

Richard Lammers, V.P. Paralegal Society of Ontario attended the Civility Forum  held in Windsor Ontario on December 8, 2009.

” The forum was well attended and very informative. Paralegals will benefit  from this session. I urge each Paralegal to make best efforts to attend the forum when it hits your area.”

The forum discusses not only the importance of civility in our practice but the public’s perception on civility within the legal practice. If we recall from our last conference in Kingston Ontario, Associate Chief Justice Cunningham made reference to the importance of civility.

If you are attending, the PSO suggests you dress as you would appear before the Court.  Brochure hand out material will be supplied to those registered to attend the forums.

Now quite intrigued, I followed through to find that the forums are presented by the Law Society which regulates both lawyers and paralegals in Ontario. Here’s what they have to say on a page entitled “Civility Challenge“:

The mandate of the Law Society is to regulate lawyers and paralegals in the public interest. Civility and professionalism on the part of lawyers and paralegals in their dealings with the courts, their clients and each other are essential to the effective administration of justice. Because of this, the Law Society is committed to ensuring that lawyers and paralegals conduct themselves with the highest standards of civility and professionalism in accordance with the Rules of Professional Conduct and Paralegal Rules of Conduct.

Concerns that complaints relating to professionalism and incivility are on the rise have led the Law Society to embark on a number of initiatives designed to raise awareness of the issue and to promote higher standards of behaviour.

While this statement suggests that professionalism and incivility are two different things, further investigation revealed the Law Society’s perspective that civility is a cornerstone of professionalism:

Lawyers [and paralegals] have a responsibility, as outlined in the of Professional Conduct, reputation of the legal profession and to assist in the advancement of its goals, organizations, and institutions.”

Any incivility shown by lawyers diminishes the public’s respect for the court and the administration of justice, and can destroy the reputation of the lawyer and the profession.

With the loss of respect comes a loss of trust. When the public loses trust in lawyers and in the profession, access to justice is threatened.

The full Law Society paper on this issue is here.
While not yet ready to fully endorse the system of paralegal regulation in Ontario, I do endorse this perspective on civility and the Civility Forum Tour.  While the need may be somewhat less here than in Ontario because licensed paralegal can directly represent clients, while all United States paralegals must work under the supervision of an attorney, I am hopeful that the topic will be on the agenda of paralegal CLE seminars and professional association conferences here in the states.

Share on Facebook

It appears not everyone is happy with the role the Law Society has in regulating paralegals in Ontario. rabble.ca carries this report:

Harry Kopyto, well-known legal activist, is back fighting the Law Society of Upper Canada (LSUC), this time over the lawyer-controlled Society’s newly acquired powers to regulate the paralegal profession.

Building on a swell of support for better regulation of the paralegal profession, the Ontario government passed the Access to Justice Act, 2006 (also known as Bill 14). The Act grants the Law Society — a body comprised of lawyers traditionally tasked with governing themselves — the formal authority for licensing paralegals. It also limits the scope of legal activities a paralegal can engage in, such as barring them from Family Court proceedings, and preventing them from doing a range of tasks related to real estate work, wills, and undefended divorces.

Unfortunately this story is short on many interesting details such as what aspect of the law Kopyto is challenging and on what basis. Also unfortunately, teaching intersession courses takes up so time, it interferes with my ability to do further research on this at the moment, but I hope to follow up soon. Of course, if  any of you know more about this, I’d be quite pleased to hear from you.

Share on Facebook

The Law Society of Upper Canada regulates the lawyers and paralegals of Ontario and is charge with ensuring that all licensed paralegals in Ontario meet standards of learning, professional competence and professional conduct that are appropriate for the legal services provided. One recent case that I may discuss more fully in another post discusses the character of an applicant for a paralegal license because of “the good character requirements set out in s. 27(2) of the Law Society Act and By-Law 4, s. 8(1) 3.”

In The Empowered Paralegal I discuss character traits such as trustworthiness, reliability, work ethic, and honesty as they relate to professionalism. The decision of the Law Society panel in the matter of Nicolino Alessandro provides a formal definition of “good character” and the role it plays in the decision on whether to grant a license which I reprint here for your consideration as professionals:

Good character has been defined as follows.

[33] In Re Spicer, supra, at p.5-6, para. 15 (Tab 2, Book of Authorities):

Convocation accepts that character is that combination of qualities or features distinguishing one person from another. Good character connotes moral or ethical strength, distinguishable as an amalgam of virtuous attributes or traits which undoubtedly include, among others, integrity, candour, empathy, and honesty.

[34] In the article by Mary F. Southin, Q.C., What is “Good Character”, (1987) 35 The Advocate 129 (Tab 3, Book of Authorities) she states at p. 129:

Character within the Act comprises in my opinion at least these qualities:

1. An appreciation of the difference between right and wrong;

2. The moral fibre to do that which is right, no matter how uncomfortable the doing may be and not to do that which is wrong no matter what the consequences may be to oneself;

3. A belief that the law at least so far as it forbids things which are malum in se must be upheld and the courage to see that it is upheld.

[35] In Re Preya, supra, at p. 6:

The definition of good character is set out in previous decisions of Law Society admissions panels, and is an evolving definition. The definition is not exhaustive, and refers to a bundle of attributes which, when taken together, amount to good character:

Character is that combination of qualities or features distinguishing one person from another. Good character connotes moral or ethical strength, distinguishable as an amalgam of virtuous attributes or traits which would include, among others, integrity, candour, empathy and honesty.

[36] The purpose of the good character requirement is enunciated in Gavin McKenzie’s text, Lawyers and Ethics: Professional Responsibility and Discipline, Scarborough, Ont.: Carswell, 1993, at para. 23.2 (Tab 4, Book of Authorities):

The purposes of the good character requirement are the same as the purposes of professional discipline: to protect the public, to maintain high ethical standards, to maintain public confidence in the legal profession and its ability to regulate itself, and to deal fairly with persons whose livelihood and reputation are affected.

This, of course, does not definitively answer the question of how the purposes of a good character requirement are best met, i.e., by separate licensing requirements for paralegals or continuation of the present system of requiring attorney supervision. However, it does clarify what the issues are. It is one of the many ways in which it is helpful for those of us in the United States to watch and learn from the Ontario experiment.

Share on Facebook

I continue to watch developments in Ontario with great interest. There paralegals are licensed and thus subject to regulation by the “Law Society.” There have been two developments recently with regard to the Law Society. One, the upcoming election by paralegals members of the five of their colleagues to join the Paralegal Standing Committee of the Law Society of Upper Canada was the subject of a very good post on Paralegal Gateway in November.  This is part of an overall effort to reform and modernize the Law Society as described in this article from marketwire.com.

The second relates to the appointment of a new Complaints Resolution Commissioner by the Law Society.  While this relates to my recent post on a disclipinary proceeding in Ontario, I am more interested in it as a follow-up to the discussion in my post and the comments to that post, “Help and Hurting Each Other,” in terms of the purpose of regulating the legal profession. The article on the appointment of the new Commissioner, also from marketwire.com, speaks entirely in terms of “public interest:”

The Complaints Resolution Commissioner plays a vital role in the Law Society’s complaints resolution process. In cases where a complaint against a lawyer or paralegal has been closed and the complainant is unsatisfied with this result, he or she can apply to the Commissioner to review the case. The Commissioner will review the file to ensure that the complaint was handled appropriately and the results were reasonable. This will often involve a face-to-face meeting with complainants, and the Commissioner also has the authority to provide alternative dispute resolution between lawyers or paralegals and their clients for issues that do not require a regulatory response.

The Law Society of Upper Canada regulates the lawyers and paralegals of Ontario in the public interest. The Law Society ensures that every individual who practises law or provides legal services in Ontario meets standards of learning, professional competence and professional conduct that are appropriate for the legal services provided.

The Law Society has a duty to protect the public interest, to maintain and advance the cause of justice and the rule of law, to facilitate access to justice for the people of Ontario, and to act in a timely, open and efficient manner.

That being said, as noted by William P. Statsky in his book Essentials of Paralegalism,  there are two main reasons an ocupation may want to be licensed by the government: to protect the public and to enhance the occupation’s own image.  He notes that this applies to all occupations that require knowledge and skills that most citizens do not have including electricians, brokers and nurse. He goes on to say:

A license serves as a measure of assurance (altough not a guarantee) that license holders are competent to perform their speicalized and often tenchincal servies. In addition to a desire to protect the public, an occupation may want licensing as a way enhance its self-image, credibility, a nd professionalism. The occupation often views licensing as a way to prevent less-educated and less-skilled individuals from working in the field.

As previously noted it may also help prevent the less-scrupulous individuals from working in the field.

This remains a difficult topic and many questions remain. While licensing may be the answer, might the same be accomplished through self-reguation by the profession itself? Who is in the best position to determine the criteria for regulation? And many more.

The point is that the basis for a profession to seek and/or engage in some sort of regulation of its members may be found not only in the public interest, but in the interest of the profession and each professional individual member of that profession. This is especially true if, as in Ontario, it results in a greater role for paralegals within the legal system and greater access to justice by the public.

Share on Facebook