Tags
education, karen george, licensure, paralegal, paralegal association, paralegal group, paralegal society, regulation, the paralegal society
An Interview with Karen George, FRP
We’ve all certainly heard a lot about licensure and regulation of the paralegal profession in recent times. You can’t go online or pick up a paralegal magazine without reading about it. In this interview, Karen George, FRP, shares her candid stance with us regarding the rather controversial topic of paralegal licensure.
_________________________________________________________________________
What is your stance regarding licensure of the paralegal profession?
I am all for it. Perhaps, even to my own detriment, but still for it.
Tell us why you support licensure and/or regulation so strongly?
The title “Paralegal” is no longer solely used as a title given to an “exceptional” legal assistant in the form of a promotion, so that a firm will not lose him or her as an employee. We, as paralegals and as professionals, should expect and demand more for our profession.
Those in our profession who teach in colleges and universities frequently speak out regarding this topic. Even the American Bar Association has recognized us as working professionals. Yet, we are working within a profession that is without any real governance or set direction. We attempt to implement our own rules and regulations through codes such as ethics and by-laws, but there are no “laws” for a paralegal.
I know you are a Florida Registered Paralegal. How does the State of Florida currently regulate its paralegals?
In my home state of Florida, we are “registered” with The Florida Bar, but we are not members. In fact, the department of The Florida Bar that oversees Florida Registered Paralegals is the Unauthorized Practice of Law (UPL) Department. Is this because they are so afraid that we will commit UPL? Do they think if they give us a “title” that we will go out and represent ourselves as pseudo attorneys at a lower price? I really don’t think that would be an issue.
The paralegal profession needs a set of laws licensing them, a board set up to oversee the activities of the individual paralegals and to set forth the criteria for the profession based upon the laws. I feel that standard rules must be implemented for education, as well.
What are some of the reasons you feel licensure is needed?
Too many “colleges” and “universities” are popping up around the countries that offer no real value for our profession. They charge exorbitant fees to unsuspecting pupils and turn out graduates who cannot get a job. In large part, this is because paralegal students are not being taught the essentials which are fundamentally necessary in order to do the job. These “victims” are saddled with school loans, no job and the daunting potential for financial ruin. This would end with licensure because standards would be set and educational institutions would have to abide by them.
Yes, the American Bar Association is trying to set the standard, but they do it alone and the public doesn’t really understand the difference between ABA approved schools and non-ABA approved schools. Prospective students are just looking at the time they will have to invest in order to obtain a paralegal certificate or some form of a designation and the cost of obtaining it. Paralegal students do not realize they need to place more weight upon the actual value and education (or lack thereof) that they will receive.
We read these posts every single day: “I am a paralegal graduate and I can’t even get an interview,” “I have a AS in paralegal studies, but no one will hire me.” Why is that? Experienced paralegals rally around these folks and step up to offer their guidance and support. We try to advise them to polish their resumes, better elaborate their strengths and prior work experience to bolster their appeal as a prospective candidate for a paralegal job since they have no paralegal experience. The working, active, experienced and involved paralegals across the country need to rally around this issue and put an end to the this.
Schools need to require internships as part of the education for their paralegal students. When I say internship, I don’t mean 4-6 hours. I mean an extended internship that will teach the fundamental job skills they will need once they enter the paralegal world. This is no different than nursing students being required to attend clinicals as part of their education. No extensive internship, no diploma. I feel that’s how it should be with our profession, as well.
Earlier you said you supported licensure even “to your own detriment.” Could you please clarify what you meant by that?
Licensure will bring about educational standards and requirements that I, as a self-made paralegal, may not have. Although I am sure I would likely fall within the parameters of whatever “grandfathering” standards they establish, I realize that I may be at an inherent disadvantage. Therefore, I view it as my duty to do all I can to insure that I meet the standards that may be set forth in the event of licensure.
Is there anything additional that you would like to tell us about this topic?
Licensure of the paralegal profession is going to happen. It must, it should and it will. The question then becomes will it be now, tomorrow or sometime in the not too distant future? I prefer sooner than later, so that I can have the ability to speak out and contribute to what it ultimately becomes for the profession.
_________________________________________________________________________
This is just one paralegal’s view regarding the issue of licensure. If you have an opinion that you would like to share with us regarding this topic (either in support of Karen’s position or perhaps one to the contrary), please leave a comment below or contact us via e-mail. Speak up! We would love to hear from you.
The Paralegal Society™ 
Great article, and so true and necessary!
In California we are not licensed, nor are we registered, although the California State Bar did, at one time in the late 1980’s, attempt to gain control over us that way. Fortunately, we paralegals fought that attempt and made the case that it is clearly a conflict of interest for the State Bar to be overseeing and controlling paralegal regulation in any form. (Doctors and nurses are separately licensed and overseen, for example — another instance where conflicts of interest could frequently arise.) The California State Legislature agreed with us.
Instead, we have enacted California Business and Professions Code, section 6450 through 6456, defining the educational minimums (or alternatives) required to call oneself a “paralegal” or “legal assistant” in California (“legal assistant” here being synonymous with “paralegal” and NOT with “legal secretary” as has been argued ad nauseum on a number of LinkedIn blogs) and specifying the ongoing mandatory continuing education required to maintain that status in compliance.
The biggest challenge since these statutes have become law has been to educate lawyers on their existence and the necessity for compliance. As there is no “paralegal compliance police” here — and frankly no methodology for surveilling or reprimanding has yet to be developed through case law or practice — the only hammer or teeth held by the very existence of these statutes is that the attorney who employs a non-compliant person bears the liability for his or her actions/failures to act. I know of no challenge that has resulted in any State Bar reprimand of an attorney for not complying with these provisions, and I don’t think there is any reported case law on the subject.
However, in July, 2010 the California Judicial Council adopted a revision to California Rules of Court, Rule 7.703, which now requires that any attorney seeking reimbursement for paralegal fees subsumed within an attorney fee recovery declaration in probate, trust, conservatorship and guardianship matters must declare under penalty of perjury that each such paralegal is compliant with Business and Professions Code Section 6450 and attach to that declaration a copy of the paralegal’s educational qualification (e.g., paralegal certificate or other document evidencing compliance with the code provisions) AND an up to date MCLE log, demonstrating continuing education credits. It is the attorney, not the paralegal who must make this declaration to the court and we have seen fees denied where compliance has not occurred.
Additionally, because many judges hearing probate, trust, conservatorship and guardianship matters on one calendar often hear litigation and other matters on other days of the week, this new court rule has served to educate the judiciary here in California with regard to the requirements of B & P C. sec. 6450 in such a way that the judges are now alert to the paralegal education/continuing education requirements and are looking for them in non-probate matters as well. Fees sought for paralegal services provided by non-compliant paralegal practitioners are being denied with great regularity, hitting attorneys where it hurts most — in their pockets!
Finally, this is calling attention to their clients: particularly insurance carriers are beginning to ask lawyers whether their paralegals are code compliant and refusing to pay for services from those who are not! If the court won’t grant an order with regard to non-compliant paralegals, then smart clients are discovering that they can refuse to pay for services by them as well.
In time, we may find that this approach works far more thoroughly than any other to convince attorneys that hiring qualified, professional paralegals who have had consistent, reliable education is worthwhile. And, it won’t be necessary to be licensed in order to do it.
Barbara, thanks for your well-written comment. We are glad you shared your thoughts on this controversial topic with our readers. We know there is more than one opinion on this topic and we’re glad you shared yours!
The problem of course, is that the mere question and/or existence or non-existence of regulation varies from state to state and we have no national standard. Thus, what is true in California is not true elsewhere.
I think we can all agree on that point, Barbara! That is precisely why we felt it important to post an article about this particular topic. I don’t think it matters that we all necessarily “agree” on the topic. What matters is that we are talking about it…and that’s a good thing! Thanks for your contribution to this discussion. We appreciate you sharing your thoughts with our readers. Feel free to jump in readers — do you have an opinion on this topic? We’d love to hear it.
I love your article, Karen, about Licensure. I love the idea that schools/universities will be held responsible for their program requirements because the more I read about this topic the more I realize that I may have been a self-induced “victim” not really checking out the curriculum of the program I was enrolling in. I believe, as you discussed, that licensure and regulations will prevent that from happening again. I do know that in Rhode island, Paralegals do not have to be State certified to be in a paralegal profession. They are requiring more and more that we have at the least a Bachelor’s Degree. I am all for education and constantly updating my knowledge through continued learning, but I want to know that what I am being taught is also “spot on” 🙂
Pingback: 2011 california paralegal requirements, Analissa Scalia, annalisa marie scalia ny, annalisa scalia, annalisa scalia campbell hall ny, annalisa scalia death, annalisa scalia ny, annalisa scalia obit, city with highest paralegal salary, florida, how did ann