As an aside, If one were to cap salaries then you would see a brain drain from the legal profession. When has any industry been improved by limiting or eliminating the brightest and best that industry can attract from working in that industry?
While it does happen even at BIGLAW, I can assure you that a senior associate and/or a partner is also going to review it. This is why as an inhouse counsel I’m willing to authorize payments to larger firms than to experts at smaller/boutique firms. The dollar amounts I deal with are just too much for a small boutique to cover.
Even in my small side practice, I trust my staff to give me full updates/reviews/analysis (even for stupid, bs, trademark applications) , but in no way in hell am I going to let them handle the client relationship or sign off on something without really reading it. If my clients saw this happening, they won’t wait for the disciplinary commission to initiate proceedings.
Licensing of paraprofessionals will not cure this issue not one bit. It will only drive costs up to the public. Does it happen now, yes, and it’s no where near even remotely a good practice. But, I guess litigators need to get their work some how.
So, you think paralegals are not smart enough to practice law. I’ve seen too many fresh law school graduates who have no idea how to practice law and too many lawyers with shit for brains that practice for years to agree with you.
And thanks for quotes… I know someone who might be hated by their staff. Be careful - that too can bite you in the ass more easily than you think.
And I do know exactly what’s legally troublesome about what I’ve written here. I just have no reason to believe that it will come back to haunt me. Part of the spirit of this message board to to spread the Straight Dope, and this is, in many cases, is the Straight Dope. Lawyers and law school are not magic, and I’m just trying to answer the debate about competition and legal fees.
A lot. Their knowledge and ability is extremely valuable and is reflected in their billing rates.
If what you think I do is read Westlaw, well, then we are talking straight past each other. Lawyers are not paid for knowledge.
I think paralegals, as a rule, are not qualified (yes, I know literally, but also practically) to practice law. There is a difference. Paralegal is not a race. It’s a loose term applied to someone who works in a law office but who isn’t a runner or a secretary. Don’t want to be a paralegal? Go back to school. I also think it is “not smart” to practice law without a license. Draw your own conclusions from that.
I think you have an incomplete picture of what it means to practice law based on your experience with a very niche commodity practice and as a result you are incredibly ignorant of the issues that would arise should we allow paralegals to “practice law” even on a limited basis.
The job prospects for lawyers when measured against their debt load really isn’t so rosy.
http://http://online.wsj.com/public/article_print/SB119040786780835602.html
Incredibly ignorant, huh? Well, thanks for that. I work for fantastic attorneys, who are involved in consumer and business bankruptcy law that I couldn’t even imagine knowing about. I’m talking about a simple Chapter 7 case, and I know that I could file them all day long.
Please tell me what the secrets of “practicing law” are? My Westlaw comment was a bit of snark, because I’m incredibly frustrated. What is so special about an attorney that a paralegal can’t do it? Quite seriously - I have no idea what you mean in a practical sense.
I now you’d like to pat me on the head since I’m “just a paralegal” but I would like specific examples. If a client came to me, I would be able to perform research, formulate an argument, brief the issue, consult with experts and serve the client just as you would. I could also attend CLE seminars, pass an ethics exam, talk to a jury and study and understand the theories of American jurisprudence. In addition, as a bonus, I also know all of the ins and outs of actually running a firm, from the billing to the filing procedures to knowing that Ted in Circuit Court is the one to call if you need a continuance. So, what am I unable to do?
You know what, Sateryn76, you might well be capable of doing all of this without a problem. I don’t dispute that. But a lot of paralegals aren’t capable of doing the legal work. There are also plenty more who don’t want to do it. Just as I am sure there are paramedics capable of performing work that requires a fully qualfied surgeon to perform.
It is a matter of public faith. If you want to do this work, go to law school and get the JD, then take the bar. Or take the bar in a state that does not require a JD.
Saying “I can do this, therefore paralegals should be allowed to do this” isn’t particularly good analysis, to tell you the truth.
Look maybe you are capable of doing everything it takes to provide adequate legal representation. Who knows? That one person who is not licensed might be capable of providing adequate legal services is not sufficient reason to abandon the licensing procedure. As it stands, in order to practice law in a US state, you have to be admitted to that state’s bar. In order to be admitted to the bar, you have to pass an exam (or admit pro hac vice or via reciprocity, which means you passed an exam somewhere) as well as a fitness screen. In order to sit for this exam, you have to be a graduate of an accredited law school. These are the obstacles to admission to prevent idiots from ruining the lives and fortunes of others. They’re hardly fool proof, as fools slip through all too often. The last thing we should do is make this easier.
In your proposal, what is to keep the paralegal practitioner from holding on to a case she has no business handling? Do you think it’s possible that a general legal education and completion and passage of a bar exam might better equip me to spot some issues you might be blind to?
This is spot on.
If you work in bankruptcy then you are in federal court, which means this “circuit” court is the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals. Why on earth would you be calling the appellate court for a continuance? If the 7th Circuit is anything like the 11th, oral arguments are rarely, if ever, continued. Does Ted really work for the circuit court? Did you mean bankruptcy court? Maybe a state court (I don’t know how Indiana’s courts are divided)?
Jesus - are you feeling threatened today? “Ted at Circuit Court” is a wholly made up example used to demonstrate what special knowledge a paralegal might be able to employ on behalf of a client. I understand the structure of Federal and State courts - are you just showing off for the non-lawyers in this thread? :rolleyes:
No. I was legitimately curious.
Has it occurred to you that this:
sounds a lot like law school?
Right - but the difference is law school costs $150,000. Why so expensive for something that can be done without it?
Where on earth did you get this idea? Indiana University’s law school in Indianapolis lists tuition at $18,500 per year (that’s about $54,000 total). Even allowing a generous living allowance, you’re in at under $100,000. In the good old nineties and early aughts, this was offset by a sweet summer gig. No more, but still, well south of $150,000.
Experience shows it generally isn’t. Still, I’m okay with non-JD’s sitting for the bar.
I have worked with some top-notch paralegals.
And my comment is this: in the end, you are paying a lawyer in the same way you pay a pilot. Much of the time, the piloting skills necessary to get that 747 from La Guardia to Hartsfield are routine, and an observer may well say, “Hey, I could do this without the hundreds of hours those guys say they need.” And they’d be right. Much of the time.
But when birds hit both your engines, it suddenly becomes a different story. And in the legal field, it sometimes happens that you don’t know the engines have been hit until its too late to do something. I don’t know much about bankruptcy practice, but in litigation, especially during a trial, you have to be alert for the unexpected. The failure to enter a timely objection can be critical – not so much for making your record, but for what the jury actually hears. Letting your guy say something that seems innocuous, but turns out to waive some critical right, is something that can happen easily.
I know that being a member of the bar is not a guarantee of competence and that being a paralegal doesn’t mean you couldn’t do a bang-up job. But bar membership includes a system of disciplinary measures that can be levied against an ill-performing lawyer, and a system of ensuring at least minimal (bar exam passing competence). While individual exceptions undoubtedly exist, as a general rule I believe these are sufficient to draw a distinction between a licensed legal practitioner and a paralegal.
Would you approve of a system that I described in an earlier post:
“Would you have less of a problem if there was a “bar” for paralegals? Maybe a brief exam for each area of case law that is “commodity law” - say, easy divorce, BK, real estate paperwork, wills, powers of attorney, corporate paperwork, those types of things. If passed, that person would be “board certified” to practice in a limited area.”
And it would include a disciplinary component?
I know this isn’t addressed to me but I wanted to add this: it’s often impossible for someone with a limitted knowledge base and skill set to know whether he’s got something straightforward vs. something complicated until well into things. What he’s doing may seem like bankruptcy work but it’s effecting some proabte or divorce matter. By the time he realizes he’s in over his head, who knows what irreperable damage he’s done by failing to pick up on something earlier. This happens to highly trained lawyers. Why create more opportunity? To expand on Bricker’s analogy, this would be like certifying certain pilots to fly only short routes on calm days.
Sateryn76 - I’m sure you are probably smart enough to be a JD. That is not the issue nor is it relevant. There are just certain professional jobs that require a formal certification to indicate that you have the minimum level of professional knowledge. Doctors, CPA accountants, engineers (PE), stockbrokers (Series 7), MDs and so on. That’s just how it is.
The whole point is to protect consumers from some schlub who may have worked as a secretary or paralegal in a law office long enough to seem like they actually know what the heck they are talking about (not that I think that describes you).
Yes, this. Very much so. I am not a lawyer. Nonetheless, I know a lot more about the law than most non-lawyers. I grew up around lawyers and judges. I’ve worked in law firms most of my adult life. Many of my friends are lawyers or judges.
As I said, I know more about the law than most laypeople. What that means is that I know enough to know I don’t know a thing.