Mandatory Licensing of Paralegals

Do you think there should be mandatory licensing of paralegals? I would like to know your opinion.

www.newyorkparalegalblog.com/

Tell me what you think. :)

Displaced Legal Professional in Denver, Colorado said: If you had ever worked as a paralegal, Joel et al, which you haven't, you would know innately that paralegals need not be licensed. You see, Joel, paralegals work under attorney supervision. Because paralegals work under attorney supervision, Joel, attorneys are responsible for their work and actions. In other words, Joel et al, attorneys will supervise their paralegals closely lest any of their actions cause attorneys to lose their law licenses. Accordingly, Joel, paralegals need not be licensed.

Further, Joel, if you were a true paralegal, you would know that paralegals cannot practice law. Only licensed attorneys can practice law. Another reason why paralegals need not be licensed.

Got it, Joel et al?

If you were a true paralegal you would know that NFPA is a proponent of mandatory licensing of paralegals. Whereas, NALA believes in voluntary certification of paralegals and legal assistants. The mandatory licensing of paralegals has been the subject of debate for many years in the legal community. For more information on this subject you can listen to my show at www.newyorkparalegalblog.com

Displaced Legal Professional in Denver, Colorado said: Lawyer:

Now do you get why paralegal licensing is unnecessary, Joel/FightBack/Phoenix et al? Paralegal association positions don't mean a damn thing, Joel/FightBack/Phoenix whatever. But if you want to play that game, while NALA may stand for "National Association of Legal Assistants," it is a recognized paralegal organization. Look at its introduction on its website:

Once again, Joel/FightBack/Phoenix/Barry Farber et al, you don't know what you're talking about. And, once again, I'll gladly pit my eleven years of paralegal experience across four specialties against your zero years of experience anytime. Continued, below....

I asked a question for discussion or debate. However, your interpretation of written statements is poor and may be a sign of a more serious condition.

Couldn't a positive aspect of regulation be providing a greater respect for the paralegal profession? Or even a way to prove to the public that the profession has high standards, or maybe even prove to an attorney that a licensed paralegal is worthy of more respect/pay? From what I've read here, it seems to be a pretty thankless job. Or perhaps regulation could even set a standard level of education and skill to be a paralegal, further enhancing the status of the position?

I think that Joel et al put a question on the table to be discussed or reviewed and wanted some opinions. Not some smart remarks.

What I believe he got was someone who can't debate or discuss nicely.
Displaced Legal Professional seems to be "displaced" for a reason. What's wrong? Scared to take a state licensure test?

As far as the discussion as to whether or not a paralegal should have to be licensed, no I do not believe they should. I do however believe that they should have to have an education from an accredited program. If they do not have that then they should not be allowed to be called a paralegal. I do not care how many years of on the job training they have.

If they are required to be licensed it would raise the cost of their services, and one point of having a paralegal is to lower the cost of attorney's fees for the public.

Also, if paralegals were forced to be licensed has anyone thought about the fact that they would also have to carry liability insurance? Would it be worth any pay raise that may come from it?

Displaced Legal Professional in Denver, Colorado said: Continued...

You probably do not know that paralegals in California are regulated. California is known to be one of the most highly regulated states in the country - yet it allows paralegals without the formal education or training you demand to work. Specifically, Sec. 6450(c)(4), Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code, addresses paralegals who have collected their knowledge via experience and OJT:

Your ridiculous accredited education program attendance requirement would put these individuals out on the street. Just so you know, I don't have a dog in that particular fight. I have a four-year degree, an ABA paralegal certificate and more than eleven years of experience across multiple specialties. You make excellent, persuasive points about paralegal licensure upping the cost of legal services and perhaps mandating paralegal malpractice insurance, though I think paralegal "malpractice" would still be the attorney's problem. I also don't think licensure would up paralegal pay. Pay boils down to simple supply and demand. And, finally, licensure is no guarantee of competence, nor would it stop the unauthorized practice of law.

I stand by all my comments. And, again, I would not be afraid to take a licensing exam.

How can you advise people on getting a job when you cannot find a job for yourself?

Displaced Legal Professional in Denver, Colorado said: First off, give us a break, Joel. FightBack is another one of your sockpuppets, along with Phoenix. Moreover, Joel whatever, you pass yourself off as a paralegal, give employment "advice," shill your silly little blog, host your silly little internet talk show, yet you have never been employed as a paralegal. I think you are a poseur, Joel. Further, Joel et al, I have been employed as a paralegal. I was employed as one for more than eleven years in multiple specialties. That is eleven more years of paralegal experience than you have, Joel et al. As I've written to you before, Joel et al, I'll be happy to pit my paralegal experience against your anytime.

Now, Joel et al, do you have anything further to contribute regarding paralegal licensing?

You can run off a list of law firms that you allegedly worked for, however there is no way for me to verify that information. For all we know you could have been a career mail room supervisor in mutable law firm locations.

FightBack in I am the real FightBack, New York said: You can run off a list of law firms that you allegedly worked for, however there is no way for me to verify that information. For all we know you could have been a career mail room supervisor in *multiple law firm locations.

*Multiple

Displaced Legal Professional in Denver, Colorado said: Mutable law firm locations! Very good, Joel et al. I'd be happy to give their names, Joel et al. My former firms are here in Denver. We'll leave it at that because this is an anonymous board. In the meantime, unlike yourself, rest assured I am what I say I am and I can prove it. You don't have to believe me, Joel et al, and, frankly, I don't give a damn if you do or don't. But, as long as we're on the subject, please disclose your list of firms.

In the meantime, Joel et al, you pose under sockpuppets in a feeble, vacuous attempt to deceive forum readers into believing you are legitimate. If you had any integrity, Joel et al, you would not use sockpuppets.

Now, Mr. Sockpuppet, let's go back on topic and resume the discussion on paralegal licensure.

I asked you first and you merely stated that the firms you worked for are in Denver. So, tell me why should I give you a list?

Displaced Legal Professional in Denver, Colorado said: Because you purport to be an experienced paralegal, Mr. Sockpuppet. Moreover, Mr. Sockpuppet, I asked you long ago on other fora to provide your legal experience. You've never answered my question.

Once again, Mr. Sockpuppet/Poseur, posters are anonymous. Your question has been answered.

I feel sorry for you. :(

Displaced Legal Professional in Denver, Colorado said: I feel sorry for you, Joel/FightBack/Phoenix/Barry Farber/Larry King. You are so insecure that you must resort to multiple screennames to convince others you are credible.

It's okay that you have never been employed as a paralegal, Mr. Sockpuppet. Just say so instead of trying to deceive others that you have been.

You have my pity, Mr. Sockpuppet.

Why don't you create a Blog so that you can share your paralegal experiences with the world. lol :)

Displaced Legal Professional in Denver, Colorado said: If you had ever worked as a paralegal, Joel et al, which you haven't, you would know innately that paralegals need not be licensed. You see, Joel, paralegals work under attorney supervision. Because paralegals work under attorney supervision, Joel, attorneys are responsible for their work and actions. In other words, Joel et al, attorneys will supervise their paralegals closely lest any of their actions cause attorneys to lose their law licenses. Accordingly, Joel, paralegals need not be licensed.

Further, Joel, if you were a true paralegal, you would know that paralegals cannot practice law. Only licensed attorneys can practice law. Another reason why paralegals need not be licensed.

Got it, Joel et al?

Chalk up score one for DLP.

Joel Irving in Lindenhurst, New York said: If you were a true paralegal you would know that NFPA is a proponent of mandatory licensing of paralegals. Whereas, NALA believes in voluntary certification of paralegals and legal assistants. The mandatory licensing of paralegals has been the subject of debate for many years in the legal community. For more information on this subject you can listen to my show at www.newyorkparalegalblog.com

Well Joel, Let NFPA duck it out among themselves. The rest of us Paralegals will continue to do what paralegals do under the supervision of our licensed bosses.

Displaced Legal Professional in Denver, Colorado said: Read this excerpt, Joel/FightBack/Phoenix/Larry King, from an article regarding paralegal licensure in the Colorado Bar Association publication, The Colorado Lawyer:

Now do you get why paralegal licensing is unnecessary, Joel/FightBack/Phoenix et al?

Paralegal association positions don't mean a damn thing, Joel/FightBack/Phoenix whatever. But if you want to play that game, while NALA may stand for "National Association of Legal Assistants," it is a recognized paralegal organization. Look at its introduction on its website:

Score 2 for DLP, 0 for Joel.

Displaced Legal Professional in Denver, Colorado said: Continued from above....

Finally, Joel/FightBack/Phoenix et al, you rip off Indeed by not paying it to advertise your revenue-generating blog. Once again, Joel et al, internet radio is not real radio. Send a tape to WABC or WOR if you want to prove to the world you are radio talent.

Smack down on Joel.

Joel Irving in Lindenhurst, New York said: I asked a question for discussion or debate. However, your interpretation of written statements is poor and may be a sign of a more serious condition.

The interpretations are correct. The discussion is moot- Paralegals are not a "public danger" to society, are supervised by licesened attorneys who will take the heat, thus no licesing and therefore no debate..............

Displaced Legal Professional in Denver, Colorado said: Consider your use of sockpuppets, Joel et al, as a sign of a serious condition.

DLP scores again.

FightBack in I am the real FightBack, New York said: How can you advise people on getting a job when you cannot find a job for yourself?

Is an attempt an low-balling the very best response you can come up with as a constructive comment.

The difference in Marion, Iowa said: Couldn't a positive aspect of regulation be providing a greater respect for the paralegal profession? Or even a way to prove to the public that the profession has high standards, or maybe even prove to an attorney that a licensed paralegal is worthy of more respect/pay? From what I've read here, it seems to be a pretty thankless job. Or perhaps regulation could even set a standard level of education and skill to be a paralegal, further enhancing the status of the position?

The paralegal already has quasi-regulations, such as Paralegal certificate from ABA approved program. I do not see the need for paralegals to prove anything to the public as they are not responsible to the public, the licensed attorneys are.

WHat exactly did you have in mind regulating?

FightBack in I am the real FightBack, New York said: You can run off a list of law firms that you allegedly worked for, however there is no way for me to verify that information. For all we know you could have been a career mail room supervisor in mutable law firm locations.

FIghtBack - And who the heck are you allegedly?

Just in the game in Centerville, Tennessee said: I think that Joel et al put a question on the table to be discussed or reviewed and wanted some opinions. Not some smart remarks.

What I believe he got was someone who can't debate or discuss nicely.
Displaced Legal Professional seems to be "displaced" for a reason. What's wrong? Scared to take a state licensure test?

As far as the discussion as to whether or not a paralegal should have to be licensed, no I do not believe they should. I do however believe that they should have to have an education from an accredited program. If they do not have that then they should not be allowed to be called a paralegal. I do not care how many years of on the job training they have.

If they are required to be licensed it would raise the cost of their services, and one point of having a paralegal is to lower the cost of attorney's fees for the public.

Also, if paralegals were forced to be licensed has anyone thought about the fact that they would also have to carry liability insurance? Would it be worth any pay raise that may come from it?

And exactly what game are you in??

kmm in Wilmington, Delaware said: And exactly what game are you in??

Just in the game, TN says "As far as the discussion as to whether or not a paralegal should have to be licensed, no I do not believe they should. I do however believe that they should have to have an education from an accredited program. If they do not have that then they should not be allowed to be called a paralegal. I do not care how many years of on the job training they have.

Good comment. I agree. I have all my credentials and truthfully, I do pooh pooh others who call themselves paralegals and do not have the credentials.

Displaced Legal Professional in Denver, Colorado said: FightBack is Joel.

Cindy, please google "Denver Post Howard Kieffer," read it and comment as it relates to this discussion.

Let me do the search and I will get back to you for comment.

kmm in Wilmington, Delaware said: Let me do the search and I will get back to you for comment.

I copied this from a Denver post article:

"The Denver Post found that Kieffer began working as an attorney as early as 2004 and represented at least 16 clients across the country by lying on bar admission applications that were not verified by the courts."

Sounds like he was a jail house lawyer at one time.

Second quote from article: "Kieffer has a criminal record that includes grand theft and filing false tax returns. He was incarcerated in the U.S. Bureau of Prisons from 1989 to 1992. "

The tip off was the faux attorney was representing criminal actions.

kmm in Wilmington, Delaware said: Let me do the search and I will get back to you for comment.

What other alias is he using?

kmm in Wilmington, Delaware said: Let me do the search and I will get back to you for comment.

the research is done and I have made my comments.

Displaced Legal Professional in Denver, Colorado said: FightBack is Joel.

Cindy, please google "Denver Post Howard Kieffer," read it and comment as it relates to this discussion.

Done and my comment is entered.

kmm in Wilmington, Delaware said: I copied this from a Denver post article:

"The Denver Post found that Kieffer began working as an attorney as early as 2004 and represented at least 16 clients across the country by lying on bar admission applications that were not verified by the courts."

Sounds like he was a jail house lawyer at one time.

Second quote from article: "Kieffer has a criminal record that includes grand theft and filing false tax returns. He was incarcerated in the U.S. Bureau of Prisons from 1989 to 1992. "

The tip off was the faux attorney was representing criminal actions.

Third quote from article: "Bergman was convicted, but the judge who presided over her trial said this week he is considering a mistrial because she was not represented by counsel. "

It is the attorneys who need to be licensed and regulated because they are representing the public. In this instance, the faux attorney's bar license was not checked out too well, he represent the above case for Bergman and lost. Futher, the case may go to a mistrial......More taxpayers money.

Displaced Legal Professional in Denver, Colorado said: The point is people like Howard Kieffer undermine the public's confidence in the legal system.

Another case is Fymbo v. State Farm. Fymbo involves a nonlawyer wiseass representing clients' interests. ca10.washburnlaw.edu/cases/2000/06/99-1305.htm

Government must protect the public from the likes of Kieffer and Fymbo - individuals who run rampant holding themselves out as "lawyers" - not nonlawyer legal assistants who, again, work under licensed attorney supervision.

Excellent comment. As I posted further comment stating it is the lawyers, (including fauxs lawyers) who need to be regulated so that they do not harm the public or as DLP quotes "undermine the legal system." end quote.

Displaced Legal Professional in Denver, Colorado said: I guess I'm a little more liberal in that regard - and I have a B.S.B.A. and ABA certificate. Also, define "credentials." IMO years of experience and, ultimately, **overall effectiveness in doing the job** count as credentials.

How 'bout the following to resolve this licensure debate? Let attorney-employers set the standards for their individual office-practices. They already do so anyway. Licensing won't change anything. Attorneys will treat nonlawyer assistants respectfully, or disrespectfully, whether or not they're licensed. Anyone who has ever worked for attorneys knows that. Respect cannot be licensed.

I agree with the comment re: licensure debate of paralegals. Yes, the attorney-employer does already set the rules. It is his license that is at risk.

Define creditentials. Me. I have a B.A. and Paralegal Certificate from ABA program. Bare minimal is the Paralegal Certificate.

Displaced Legal Professional in Denver, Colorado said:

and, ultimately, **overall effectiveness in doing the job** count as credentials.

DLP- I concur.

Displaced Legal Professional in Denver, Colorado said: Yeppers. Perfect grounds for appeal.

If you look at it another way, in a contorted, perverted way Kieffer did a great job for his "client"!

By getting a mistrial- but not by the court required route, because he was a faux attorney.

Displaced Legal Professional in Denver, Colorado said: You can do better than a personal remark, can't you? People who use personal attacks do so because they are inept. They cannot overcome the other person's argument with facts, logic and information. The problem with Joel is he represents himself as a paralegal and knowledgeable about finding employment as one. Yet he consistently refuses to answer questions about his background.

That was by no means a personal remark DLP. That was a nice way for me not to say personal remarks. A personal remark would be (1) "From what you have written here we can all tell that you do not have any friends and you are a very pathetic lonely person”. (2) "...only arrogant, pompass jackasses treat people the way that you have done here".(3) "It’s apparent that your attitude is what is keeping you a “Displaced Legal Professional”. I did not say any of those "personal remarks" now did I DLP? Stating that you cannot seem to debate nicely was a mere observation. It seems to me that YOU and YOU alone are the one that is using personal remarks. Therefore, you are calling yourself inept. IT'S OK, WE ALL UNDERSTAND THAT BEING INEPT CAN MAKE YOU MEAN AND HATEFUL. I however have a full time paralegal career in a very prominent firm and you apparently do not.

As far as Joel proving his background.... That is what is ludicrus. Why would he? If you are in any legal field you know not to give personal information over the internet.

Continued below.......

Displaced Legal Professional in Denver, Colorado said: Continued....

You say you do not believe in paralegal licensing, yet you demand accredited education. How would you enforce the education requirement without policing via licensing or other method? Your argument is inconsistent and illogical - and you say I cannot debate or discuss nicely!

Continued, below....

I did not “demand” anything. Do not misquote me. What I "suggested" was a requirement to get educated. If someone has years of on the job training then they would not have a problem taking a small refresher class. If they pass the class then they would not be out on the street. Now would they? If they do not pass the test then they would not be allowed to be called a paralegal. They would not be jobless. They can continue to do their jobs, and don’t try to tell me that their attorneys would no longer want them if they do not pass the class. The boss would just come up with a new “title” for them. I know for a fact that my attorneys would never give up their paralegals pass or fail.

So, your statement that my arguement is inconsistant and illogical is in itself pathetic (yes, another mere observation not a personal remark)

Your arguements make you sound more like a rejected lover. Did Joel do something to break your poor pitiful heart?

And yes, I still say that you cannot debate nicely.

Displaced Legal Professional in Denver, Colorado said: Continued...

You probably do not know that paralegals in California are regulated. California is known to be one of the most highly regulated states in the country - yet it allows paralegals without the formal education or training you demand to work. Specifically, Sec. 6450(c)(4), Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code, addresses paralegals who have collected their knowledge via experience and OJT:

Yes, I do know the laws regarding paralegals in just about every state and even Canada.

Here is just one of the many examples that I have:

www.paralegal-advocate.com/coryreport.htm

And, if you do a little research you will see that Ontario has had very good results.

Now, after "debating" the subject with you, you have convinced me that there should be some type of accredidation program set up. And I will quote from The Honourable Peter deC. Cory:
"There are incompetent and irresponsible individuals claiming to be paralegals. Their misconduct is disgraceful their actions mislead the public and disrupt the proceedings of courts, boards and tribunals."

I think this may apply to someone blogging here on this blog.

Now, my question is......did I do better with my personal remarks this time?

kmm in Wilmington, Delaware said: The paralegal already has quasi-regulations, such as Paralegal certificate from ABA approved program. I do not see the need for paralegals to prove anything to the public as they are not responsible to the public, the licensed attorneys are.

WHat exactly did you have in mind regulating?

I agree that paralegals have guidelines as set out by ABA, NFPA, and NALA. I also agree that a paralegal has nothing to prove to anyone, but to the attorney that they work for.

I question the person that introduces himself/herself as a paralegal when they are not certified. Does this not bother any Certified Paralegal/AS Paralegal/BS Paralegal? Yes, years of experience should qualify them for a title, but do you think they are misrepresenting themselves to the public?

As far as regulating, why not require classes, even just a minimum class for the ones that have on the job training? The attorneys can monitor who they hire. That way the state would have to minimum monitoring to do. There are already offices in Nashville that have rules against anyone that is not at least a Certified Paralegal introducing themselves as a paralegal. It's not allowed, period.

I believe that some type of regulation will take place eventually.

Displaced Legal Professional in Denver, Colorado said: Yeppers. Perfect grounds for appeal.

If you look at it another way, in a contorted, perverted way Kieffer did a great job for his "client"!

You are correct. IF the judge does not call a mistrial, the verdict is in and as grounds for an appeal.

kmm in Wilmington, Delaware said: Just in the game, TN says "As far as the discussion as to whether or not a paralegal should have to be licensed, no I do not believe they should. I do however believe that they should have to have an education from an accredited program. If they do not have that then they should not be allowed to be called a paralegal. I do not care how many years of on the job training they have.

Good comment. I agree. I have all my credentials and truthfully, I do pooh pooh others who call themselves paralegals and do not have the credentials.

Exception: When non-credentialed (no paralegal certificate)paralegals, such as one who has worked at Legal Aid for many years and is extremely effective at his job as paralegal, etc

Displaced Legal Professional in Denver, Colorado said: The point is people like Howard Kieffer undermine the public's confidence in the legal system.

Another case is Fymbo v. State Farm. Fymbo involves a nonlawyer wiseass representing clients' interests. ca10.washburnlaw.edu/cases/2000/06/99-1305.htm

Government must protect the public from the likes of Kieffer and Fymbo - individuals who run rampant holding themselves out as "lawyers" - not nonlawyer legal assistants who, again, work under licensed attorney supervision.

The courts seem to have missed something. As memory serves, when an attorney signs off on minimal the first document of legal proceeding, the attorney must put his Attorney Bar Number under his signature. I guess the court should be checking on these numbers - and that is how Keiffer got his documents through the court system. No pick-up.

Just in the game in Lawrenceburg, Tennessee said: That was by no means a personal remark DLP. That was a nice way for me not to say personal remarks. A personal remark would be (1) "From what you have written here we can all tell that you do not have any friends and you are a very pathetic lonely person”. (2) "...only arrogant, pompass jackasses treat people the way that you have done here".(3) "It’s apparent that your attitude is what is keeping you a “Displaced Legal Professional”. I did not say any of those "personal remarks" now did I DLP? Stating that you cannot seem to debate nicely was a mere observation. It seems to me that YOU and YOU alone are the one that is using personal remarks. Therefore, you are calling yourself inept. IT'S OK, WE ALL UNDERSTAND THAT BEING INEPT CAN MAKE YOU MEAN AND HATEFUL. I however have a full time paralegal career in a very prominent firm and you apparently do not.

As far as Joel proving his background.... That is what is ludicrus. Why would he? If you are in any legal field you know not to give personal information over the internet.

Continued below.......

Just in the game, TN- And what productive purpose is your personal attack on DLP providing contructive commmentary? Who are you???

Judge not yet he judge oneself.

Just in the game in Centerville, Tennessee said:
So, your statement that my arguement is inconsistant and illogical is in itself pathetic (yes, another mere observation not a personal remark)

Your arguements make you sound more like a rejected lover. Did Joel do something to break your poor pitiful heart?

And yes, I still say that you cannot debate nicely.

To say that the argument is "pathetic" is a childish comment in itself, and certainly non-professional. More aptly, a better comment would be that ...believe my argument advocates the point that ....[summazation point}

People like the two of you so-called paralegals put a black spot on the paralegal profession.

Just in the game in Centerville, Tennessee said: I agree that paralegals have guidelines as set out by ABA, NFPA, and NALA. I also agree that a paralegal has nothing to prove to anyone, but to the attorney that they work for.

I question the person that introduces himself/herself as a paralegal when they are not certified. Does this not bother any Certified Paralegal/AS Paralegal/BS Paralegal? Yes, years of experience should qualify them for a title, but do you think they are misrepresenting themselves to the public?

Just in the game, TN - As to misrepresenting themselves to the public, they can call themselves anything they want, except the title given to them by attorney when they sign off on documents.
They would not be harming the public because they do not represent the public in legal matters, exception adminstrative hearings where paralegal can represent client.

Are the two of you drinking Thunderbird or Mad dog?

Just in the game in Centerville, Tennessee said:

As far as regulating, why not require classes, even just a minimum class for the ones that have on the job training? The attorneys can monitor who they hire. That way the state would have to minimum monitoring to do. There are already offices in Nashville that have rules against anyone that is not at least a Certified Paralegal introducing themselves as a paralegal. It's not allowed, period.

I believe that some type of regulation will take place eventually.

Should regulation ever become required, the above is a good suggestion. At present, it is the licensed attorneys whose job it is to regulate the paralegals, or legal assistant (no paralegal certificate) and to "supervise" their work.

As to forbidding someone introducing themselves on the job as a paralegal, if attorney has not given them said title, yes, I agree. Again- it is the attorneys reguirement to regulate his staff.

Joel Irving in Lindenhurst, New York said: People like the two of you so-called paralegals put a black spot on the paralegal profession.

No comment required for you Joel. the end. Have a great day.

kmm in Wilmington, Delaware said: No comment required for you Joel. the end. Have a great day.

What is the matter, you can dish out the sarcasm but you cannot take it? :)

Displaced reminds me of Charlie in the JP Morgan Chase forum.

You guys do make some valid points regrading the issue of licensing paralegals.