I think his point is the same as yours.
Perhaps I’m at a disadvantage, because I work primarily with an area of law that is very straightforward in most cases. Not only that, but bankruptcy itself has a pretty well-defined sets of limits, and the vast majority of cases do not require any specialized knowledge. That, of course, is not true for most others areas of law.
I understand the concerns about the limits of a paralegal’s ability, but my point was that much of the work that goes on in a typical BK can be done by a reasonably smart teenager. The forms are designed to be used by anyone, and contain a great deal of information.
This originally started as a thread about competition lowering attorney fees, and if a paralegal can do BKs for $300, then logic would dictate that lawyers would have to lower fees to compete.
Requiring malpractice insurance would defeat the purpose because the fees would skyrocket. So anyone going to see a paralegal would do so knowing that malpractice insurance would not be available. A remedy is still available, since a malpractice suit could still be filed. Or, maybe a paralegal would purchase insurance, and the fee would go to $700. That might attract more business, and be a good investment. Then people have three choices of who and how much it takes to file a case. As long as full disclosure is made, I think it should be buyer beware.
I am somewhat surprised that some of the names in this thread, who are usually on the side of the “poor” against the “rich” wouldn’t support a certification for paralegals that would save multiple hundreds of dollars for people who need it the most. I know the idea is that you are protecting people who may be less educated or financially savvy, but I see a lot of lawyers who screw people as hard as they can, and then hide behind their law degree.
I’m still not sure why a JD is considered so holy - what would be wrong with a six month course, akin to a real estate class, with the paralegal getting a certification and legal authority to file simple BKs or wills or whatever? It seems that the default assumption is that a paralegal wouldn’t be able to discern when they were in over their head until it is too late. That is somewhat insulting, and a law degree is not an indicator of good common sense or lack of ego.
I don’t know where the lawyers in this thread work, but I assure you things are different in a sole practitioner’s office. They kill to recruit and maintain a paralegal who can do the vast majority of the legal work without oversight. Of course, the biggest secret is that most pleadings are forms that require very few changes. I come from a family of lawyers and paralegals, and have worked for sole practitioner lawyers since I was 15. I have talked to paralegals in big firms, and I honestly can’t figure out what they do, since it’s so foreign to me.
I have also been getting the feeling that some of you think I’m a victim of sour grapes. Not so - if things go well, I’m quitting the legal field entirely by next fall. I just honestly think that lawyers have it set up the way they want it - the vast majority of lawmakers are lawyers, and they have stacked the deck with UPL laws, which ensures no competition, and therefore, no need to lower rates.
Every bankruptcy case requires specialized knowledge - knowledge of bankruptcy law. The required specialized knowledge might not be vast, e.g. a run-of-the-mill chapter 7, but it is no less specialized.
And that’s why paralegals perform those functions in a law office. So what do the lawyers do? Play cards? Or, is it what you think of as lawyer work actually paralgeal work (except for unsupervised pleading drafting).
No, but it is an indicator of a level of education. All things are not intuitive, especially in matters of the law and even more especially in bankruptcy.
What would prevent the paralegal from filing her own bankruptcy? Look, I agree that there are some less than stellar consumer bankruptcy lawyers. I don’t think the solution to this problem is making it easier for anyone to practice bankruptcy law. Quite the contrary.
Why have licensing at any level then, if the policy is buyer beware? I mean, the people who employ heavy hitters are in a much better position to determine whether they’re receiving adequate representation, no? Why is it just the poor who have to deal with a less educated professional?
A legal degree is no defense to malpractice. No one can “hide” behind a JD.
This is no secret. That’s what makes consumer bankruptcy a commodity practice.
Well, if they’re not consumer bankruptcy paralegals it would be foreign to you. They might prepare closing binders, review discovery, assist with trial preperation, do records searches, etc.
I meant specialized knowledge within the BK code - say UCC lien issues, a massive Chapter 11 or an operating Chapter 7.
If a law firm did only basic Chapter 7/13 work, then yes, the lawyers would generally have nothing to do but play cards. So, why not cut out the overhead of the expensive lawyer, and therefore lower the fee for a basic 7/13?
Right - so if you know someone has a paralegal certification, you know what you’re getting, and if you think it might be too tricky and require a JD, then you go see a lawyer instead.
Well sure, but you can discharge almost any kind of judgment. Should we require everyone to carry some kind of liability insurance, all the time?
What’s your solution for the people who cannot afford a $1200 BK, and cannot get a pro bono lawyer because legal aid is swamped? Too bad - they lose their house. That’s a shame, since there are a lot of people who could easily help them, for much cheaper.
My point is that most people in that situation do not require a more educated professional, and are being forced to pay for something they don’t need. I know that the “law” can be very intimidating to all kinds of people, especially those with less education, so acting pro se is out. Why are they pushed into a Mercedes, when all they need is a Chevy?
Sure they do - in this country, and in a way because of UPL restrictions, lawyers are considered by many to above question. Lots of people assume they have to put up with crappy divorce settlements, personal injury damages, unreasonable small claim lawsuits and all sorts of other unjust things, because the party convincing them to do something is a lawyer.
Okay - so, again, how to justify a $1200 fee?
I did not mean their duties were foreign to me, I meant their area of responsibility. Big firm paralegals are not usually subjected to the pressures of what the average small firm paralegal is. Trial prep and reviewing medical records is one thing (I’ve done both) but having total responsibility for the files on your desk within the firm, is a lot more stressful and requires more skill.
Jesus, Sateryn76, move to California and get admitted to the bar if you think you’re hot shit. You don’t need to go to law school for it. Just please stop with this pedantic nonsense.
I don’t think I’m hot shit. As stated above, I’m looking to get out of this field.
whole bean keeps trying to make this about BK law, and it’s not. My disagreement is with the restrictions placed by a group of lawyers who are in power, and the use of that power to force excessive fees for a needed service.
It seems like the lawyers in this thread are the ones trying to derail it. Coincidence?
I was a paralegal at a firm that at its nadir only had two attorneys, and every single thing I did was reviewed by somebody before it went out. They liked and trusted my work, but they weren’t going to put their asses on the line if I sent out something wrong.
Wait, on second thought, let’s not expose you to the unwary bankruptcy consumers:
cf.
and this gem:
how, pray tell, are the dumber-than-smart-teenagers supposed to judge that?
or are you now proposing a business model where you charge 25% of the prevailing rate for a Chapter 7 (which is not the prevailing rate for a straight simple Chapter 7 in my district) and can afford to pay overhead on that, and then finally afford to take the time out of your day to meet with the dumbass to tell them that it’s too tricky so they should go see a lawyer?
Judges set review rates for Chapter 7 & 13 fees. They didn’t pull that number out of their ass to excessively pad their practitioners’ bank accounts.
Where do you think judges come from? They’re lawyers :rolleyes:
if you have ever set foot in front of a judge as an attorney, you would quickly stop the erratic motion of your eyeballs
I can’t be bothered to read the whole thread but wanted to respond to this post. Nametag’s assumptions are that the story Stranger tells can’t be true because lawyers have always made $160K a year, or that the story takes place this year when lawyers still make $160K a year to start. It’s kind of cute, but I can tell you from experience that lawyers weren’t always so well paid (and I know that Gfactor at least will back me up) – not so long ago, big firm lawyers made half of what they make now. And if Stranger’s story relates to a trial many years ago, which it does, then Nametag’s criticism is unfounded, which it is.
To respond to Sateryn76’s hijack, while I do agree that there is a problem for the middle class in affording legal help, I don’t think that authorizing paralegals to practice law solves the problem. It’s not just the lack of training/education, but also the lack of regulation and malpractice insurance. Having been involved in a number of notario fraud cases, where paralegals held themselves out as being able to practice law but instead defrauded their victims, I’m not in favor of authorizing a group of people to cause such damage without also setting up a method to regulate them and recoup payments made.
I started reading this thread and gave up because. Too many people have too many misunderstandings about lawyers.
There are two kinds of lawyers that make a lot of money. Really successful trial lawyers that work on contingency and corporate lawyers. We all have some idea of what those super successful trial lawyers do and how they make their money. What people don’t understand is that corporate lawyers (and I include litigators that work at large law firms) make a lot of money because of the insanely large numbers involved in the transactions they are involved in.
Top law students fresh out of law school made 80K/year 10 years ago, now they make 160K/year. They are frequently little more than glorified proofreaders but when there are millions if not billions of dollars on the line you would probably be willing to pay Einstein to check your math. If and when these lawyers become partners they are the only ones that have had enough experience doing these sort of high dollar transactions that you almost have to use them and they can earn several million dollars a year because noone else can really do what they do.
If you capped their pay, they would probably want just as much money for their work, they would just work a lot less. Non-partners would see a drop in their pay but they would work fewer hours as well and probably have a better chance at making partner. It would probably be a good thing for the profession.
I think lawyers add a great deal of value, and I also see no reason why totally unlicensed, uncertified people should be barred from offering their services as a lawyer.
I have a similar opinion on letting snake-oil salesmen sell people whatever drugs they want and additionally practice unlicensed medicine–however the only reason I don’t support that in practice is because there is a societal harm that can result if a quack fails to diagnose an infectious disease properly and then it spreads to more of the population than would otherwise be the case.
With unregulated lawyers I don’t really see it being so much of a problem.
The concept of an “uncertified” lawyer isn’t really that crazy. The fact that not all accountants are CPAs and not all engineers are P.E.s hasn’t lead to widespread societal ruin. I think the CPA thing is a good comparison, and accounting a good comparison to the law profession. You have a lot of arcane rules and procedures, many different areas of practice, and a necessity for specialized training in order to be successful. But then you also have some aspects of the fields that are essentially so easy you can pretty much hire anyone to do it for you (like handling middle class tax returns, imagine if tax preparation places didn’t hire a ton of cheap tax preparers but instead had to use a CPA for every single tax return.)
I’ll say this, for my business I’d never use a lawyer working out of the back of his car without a degree, or some accounting graduate from the University of Phoenix Online who has never bothered to take the CPA exams–but I don’t see how it hurts me for those less appealing options to be out there on the market. I wouldn’t buy Pabst Blue Ribbon but it doesn’t hurt me that it is offered for sale.
If there is some sort of societal impact I’m not seeing (and on the level of the undiagnosed infectious disease example–not just “well if Joe Smith loses all his money because his lawyer sucked that is ultimately bad for the economy” sort of thing) my opinion could be changed.