Of Matriculation and Minefields

Well, there was a little flap in the legal twitterverse and blogosphere last week with what was widely perceived to be a quite ill-informed attack on paralegals over at ATL. A number of my colleagues have responded to this admirably in their own blogs here, here and here, as well as in a large number of comments to the post, and I don’t want to rehash what’s already been very well said.

In fact, I hesitated to weigh in at all, as the post has probably already gotten more traffic than it deserves, except now that I'm teaching in one of the very degree programs the post is ridiculing, I guess I took the whole thing a little personally.

So . . . . I want to comment on two aspects of “paralegaldom”: education and appreciation.

The slender excuse for the slam on paralegals was an alleged question to ATL about the utility of an A.A. degree in Paralegal Studies. (I say alleged because who really seeks career advice from the notoriously snarky ATL? I've always assumed these “Pls hndle Thx” queries were made up – which if true, actually makes the meanness toward paralegals that much more gratuitous.)

So how about it? Exactly what kind of education does one need to be a good paralegal? All sorts of education plus a healthy dose of life experience might fit the bill, in my view.

Granted, there are some law firms and corporate legal departments that would not consider hiring a paralegal candidate who lacked a 4 year college degree.

However, that hiring stringency is by no means universal. There are lots of law firms out there who care more about law firm experience than educational credentials, and are hiring (when they hire, anyway . . . whole 'nother issue, that) candidates with Associate of Arts (i.e., A.A.) degrees, or even no post high school degrees at all.

In fact, I even see the occasional paralegal job posting insisting on a paralegal certificate (i.e., that same maligned A.A. degree) which suggests that my B.A. plus over 20 years' paralegal experience wouldn't be enough for them.

Which is just weird.

The point is, law firms evaluate their staffing needs, their clients and their firm culture, and make decisions about what sort of training they're looking for in their paralegal candidates.

In fact, in my state of California, the only state so far to legislate mandatory educational standards for paralegal*, an A.A. degree in an accredited paralegal program satisfies the statute’s requirements. As an instructor in an A.A. paralegal program, I can attest that when my students graduate, they will certainly know more about the legal system and the job skills needed by paralegals than I did when I entered the field and started my on-the-job training.

Don’t get me wrong. I have a BA myself (plus a few years of grad school to boot – I just couldn’t let go of being a student for a while.) I loved my field of study, and I believe my college education taught me how to research, how to write, and how to think critically – all necessary skills for a good litigation paralegal. But does anybody really think that my philosophy and literature courses actually directly prepared me for work as a paralegal?

I'm also in huge favor of paralegals gaining all the training and continuing legal education they can pack in, and taking advantage of the superb professional development and certification resources available to them.

That said, it seems there is this elitist view that a Bachelor’s Degree is inherently superior to any type of vocational training, and my question is, superior for what? This ridiculing of paralegal degree students - exactly as if a person actually desiring to pursue a course of study that would prepare her to . . . wait for it . . . be a paralegal is a thing worthy of scorn - makes me tired!

Can we all get along?

And finally, because I did say I would also comment on appreciation, I’d like to add that there are a lot of lawyers and law firms out there who appreciate paralegals and the value we bring to their practices and their clients. People who don’t view us as being at the low end of the law firm pecking order. People who appreciate the fact that we know Minesweeper is just about the lamest game on the planet.

(Oh wait . . . sorry to all you Minesweeper fans out there . . .)

So hats off to the lawyers who appreciate us, and let’s quit giving time, attention and precious RSS feed real estate to those who don’t!

* See Business & Professions Code §6450(c). In addition, the New Mexico Supreme Court, in its Rules Governing Paralegal Services, sets mandatory educational standards for paralegals. (Rule 20-115 NMRA.)

Those Pesky Little Rules!

When I began my career, very few (if any) states regulated the paralegal profession, and I remember the topic being somewhat controversial.  Now, over 20 years later, a growing number of states, including California, have some form of regulation for paralegals, and many view regulation as a beneficial thing for the profession.  (For a very useful overview, see Getting legal with paralegals: A look at state regulations (Durgin, Catherine R. 2007. Business Law Today 16 (3)).  In addition, last week’s The Paralegal Voice informative podcast addressed the issue of regulation, among other topics.) 
 

When I worked in Big Law, I didn’t have to think much about the state legal requirements for paralegals, because my employers did it for me.  My qualifications as regards education and experience were easy to verify. And the firms I worked for provided ample in-house MCLE seminars (mandatory continuing legal education, for those of you not in the industry), and encouraged us all to attend them.  Some firms kept track of my MCLE credits for me so that I didn’t even have to do the arithmetic - how sweet is that!  As a result, I rarely gave it a thought.
 

Now that I am self-employed as a contract paralegal for multiple attorneys and law firms, the weight of this responsibility falls on me a bit more heavily.  There is no one overseeing this for me; I’ve got to stay on top of it myself! 
 

Why is it so important?  I mean after all, nobody is really checking!  Well, my failure to keep my requirements up to date could have a very negative impact on my clients. 
 

This subject was highlighted in a recent MCLE I attended, co-sponsored by the Sonoma County Bar Association and the Redwood Empire Association of Paralegals, called “Paralegals 101.”  Among many other helpful reminders was a discussion of several recent California cases in which paralegal fees were either reduced or stricken altogether from fee recovery awards because the moving party failed to show that the paralegals whose fees were being sought were qualified under the relevant statute.  Obviously this means that if any client of mine hopes to recovery my fees some day, it is incumbent on me to make sure I have the required proof that I meet the education and law-related experience requirements, and that my MCLE credits are up to date.
 

In my experience, most attorneys don’t give much thought to whether their paralegals – be they employee or contractor – meet the requirements of Bus. & Prof. Code §6450.  But if one of my clients got her motion to recovery my fees denied because I was lacking in some respect, you had better believe that client would care then!

 

California Business & Professions Code §6450 et seq. defines the qualifications and requirements for anyone holding the title of paralegal or legal assistant, including education and/or experience qualifications, and mandatory continuing legal education requirements.  It prohibits a paralegal from providing legal advice, representing clients in court, or contracting with or being employed by anyone other than an attorney while performing legal services.