comments received -...

COMMENTS RECEIVED 2/1/13 Attorney Stephen E. Ensberg 2/1/13 Ian M. Duncan, President, California Association of Legal Document Assistants 2/14/13 Kathleen Mountjoy, PL, LDA 4/2/13 Attorney Janet Gutierrez 4/2/13 Attorney Anton Lakshin 4/5/13 Melanee Cottrill, RP, President, Sacramento Valley Paralegal Association 4/8/13 Attorney Joan M. Medeiros 4/8/13 Attorney Steve Temko 4/8/13 Attorney Cricket Tryon 4/8/13 Attorney Daniel Grunbaum 4/8/13 Attorney Georgia Williams 4/9/13 Attorney Bernadette C. Hilgeman 4/9/13 Thea Glazer, member of the Family Law Section of the San Diego County Bar Association 4/10/13 Attorney Brian Kretsch 4/10/13 Attorney Nancy Stassinopoulos

1

Greenman, Teri

Subject: RE: Limited license program

‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐ From: Janet [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, April 02, 2013 7:22 PM To: Greenman, Teri Subject: Limited license program My name is Janet Gutierrez. I am an attorney in Chula Vista California. I was admitted to the Bar in December of 2009. Although I was fortunate enough to have a partial tuition scholarship and I worked all through law school, I owe about $150,000.00 in student loans. I have a very small practice in Chula Vista, and it is a struggle every month to make ends meet. I make about $4,000.00 gross per month. I keep having to lower my fees to deal with so much competition, especially from paralegals, legal document preparers, bankruptcy petition preparers, and unlawful detainer assistants. I am currently charging $700.00 for chapter 7 cases because bankruptcy petition preparers charge $300.00 and some attorneys are advertising for $700.00 for no asset cases, and clients don't understand that doesn't include fees and costs, etc. Bankruptcy petition preparers don't have to go to court, so they dont spend money on gas getting to court, or pay parking at the courthouse. Essentially I am working more every year just to make about the same amount I made when I first started. I am good at what I do. I was recently named one of San Diego's Top Young Attorneys, but I can barely afford rent. Adding a limited license program will only make things worse for attorneys by forcing us to compete with these professionals. It will also be bad for consumers. I get cases all the time from people that paid "professionals" to help them, and I have to fix what they did wrong, and explain why what they were told is incorrect. It is already a misdemeanor to engage in the unauthorized practice of law, but unless you've been through law school, losing a limited license is not the same stakes as losing your bar license. There are already legal document preparers, bankruptcy petition preparers, unlawful detainer assistants, etc. Why create another category? I read that hundreds of law school teachers were going to be laid off because the number of student applicants for law school decreased so much. The reason why is because lawyers are not making a lot of money, recent grads are having a difficult time finding a job, or keeping a job, and we can't afford to even pay our student loans. How is this going to help? Is it fair that I had to pay $150,000.00 for my education and someone who didn't invest the time and money can counsel a client about bankruptcy? I don't think so. The program is a terrible idea. The state bar is supposed look after us. It would be better to force us to take on more pro bono cases than to create a limited license program. I believe the only reason why this hasn't resulted in an outcry from attorneys is that a lot of attorneys don't know about it. I can't even afford to make it to San Francisco to attend the meeting or I would. I truly hope you'll consider and read our emails in lieu of us not being able to attend. If you would like, I can provide testimony from clients that were defrauded by legal document preparers or assistants. The clients reported them to the DA, and they just filed for bankruptcy or moved offices and nothing could be done because they weren't attorneys.

2

Respectfully, Janet Gutierrez, Esq. Gutierrez & Associates 303 H St., Suite 457 Chula Vista, CA 91910 Sent from my NOOK

1

Greenman, Teri

Subject: RE: re Limited License Program

From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Anton Lakshin Sent: Tuesday, April 02, 2013 5:44 PM To: Greenman, Teri

Subject: re Limited License Program

Dear Teri:

I am contacting you because I wanted to give some feedback regarding the idea of developing a Limited License program. I have grave concerns that creating yet another sub category of legal services will lead to even greater abuse and fraud of the legal system. I am a practicing attorney of 4 years, and I have witnessed firsthand how paralegals, would be document preparers and just plain crooks fleece the public and provide sub par legal services that end up doing more harm than good. Creating yet another category will just create another avenue for these people to exploit, while confusing the consumer.

The Bar should be exploring way of lowering the cost of legal education to make it more affordable for the lawyers that are already out there and the ones coming out of law schools to be able to provide legal services without charging $300 an hour just to pay off their student loans. We have a glut of new graduates, who cant provide affordable legal services because they are under too much financial stress themselves. Why cant the bar look at way of helping these new graduates in some way.

-- With Confidence, Anton Lakshin, Attorney At Law Confidentiality Notice: The information contained in this electronic e-mail and any accompanying attachment(s) is intended only for the use of the intended recipient and may be confidential and/or privileged. If any reader of this communication is not the intended recipient, employee, or agent of the intended recipient, you are hereby advised that unauthorized use, disclosure, dissemination, or copying is strictly prohibited, and may be unlawful. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify the sender by return e-mail, and delete the original message and all copies and backups from your system. Thank you.

Good afternoon, Mr. Lakshin‐

Thank you for your feedback. I will be forwarding your email to the Working Group members and would also like to include it as part of the public record for the April 11 hearing. Could you please let me know if that is OK with you?

Kind regards,

Teri Greenman

2

Teri Greenman Executive Offices State Bar of California 180 Howard Street, 10th Floor San Francisco, CA 94105 Phn: (415) 538-2454 Email: [email protected]

This e-mail may contain confidential and privileged materials for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any review, use, distribution or disclosure by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient (or authorized to receive for the recipient), please contact the sender by reply e-mail and delete all copies of this message.

From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Anton Lakshin Sent: Wednesday, April 03, 2013 2:18 PM To: Greenman, Teri Subject: Re: re Limited License Program Absolutely. You may include the statement. Quite honestly, I think the BAR is moving in the wrong direction. Instead of cutting up the legal field into smaller and smaller pieces and sub categories what we should be doing as a state and as a country is lowering the cost of entry into the profession. For example why does the legal profession have to be 3 years of formal law school education? It could just as easily be 2 years of actual schooling and 1 year of intern/externship with a licensed attorney or firm. This is very similar to what is done in the UK, and it works great. They produce attorneys that are well rounded in the law, and who have experience coming out of school. In contrast what we produce are students well versed in common law that is totally not relevant to actual practice, with debt loads of $150,000 or more, who have limited if any experience in actually working in the legal field with clients. The solution should not be to create sub categories of licensed professionals, it should be to drive down costs of legal education and produce higher quality attorneys. There are thousands of unemployed attorneys right now in the state of California. They and new graduates can fill the need that is out there, but we have to make it possible for them to do that. A newly minted attorney with $150,000 in loans cant. just as a personal example, I work in the family law field, and I frequently take clients through the local bar at a rate of $75/hr. But I can only do this because I was able to pay off my loans in full and had a scholarship. My law partner recently left to join a firm that charges $350/hr, because she could not make ends meet serving lower wage clients. That should not be an outcome in this profession. And it all comes back to cost of entering the legal profession.

Melanee Cottrill, RP: President Leslie Baum: Vice President

Cindy Marchetti: Vice President Elizabeth Geiger, CRP: Secretary

Janine Orsi: Treasurer Mary McLaughlin, RP: Director

Connie Kelley, CRP: Director Christina Robinson: Director

Julieanne Allen: Director Eric Garcia: Director

Marcia McClain: Director

PO Box 453 Sacramento, CA 95812

(916)572-7876 www.svpa.org

April 5, 2013 State Bar of California Limited License Working Group 180 Howard Street San Francisco, CA 94105 Re: April 11, 2013 Working Group Meeting Dear working group members, We are glad you are looking into the timely issue of Limited License Legal Technicians. Enclosed are the following documents for your consideration: 1. Limited License Legal Technician position paper; and 2. Non-lawyer Practice position (National Federation of Paralegal Associations). We hope you find these documents informative and assistive, and look forward to working with you on this exciting program. Regards, Melanee Cottrill, RP President, SVPA Enclosures: Two position papers

Advancing the Paralegal Profession Since 1977

P.O. Box 456 Sacramento, CA 95812 ● www.svpa.org ● (916)572-7876

Limited License Legal Technicians

A Position Paper

April 5, 2013

Limited License Legal Technicians Page i

Contents Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 1

About the Association ................................................................................................................. 1

Limited License Legal Technicians ............................................................................................... 1

Background ...................................................................................................................................... 2

Paralegals .................................................................................................................................... 2

Legal Document Assistants .......................................................................................................... 2

Legal Technicians ......................................................................................................................... 2

Canada: Licensed Paralegals .................................................................................................... 3

Washington State: Limited License Legal Technicians ............................................................ 3

Limited License Legal Technicians ................................................................................................... 4

Need ............................................................................................................................................ 4

Services Provided ........................................................................................................................ 4

Qualifications and Conditions for Admittance ............................................................................ 5

Education and Experience ....................................................................................................... 5

Mandatory Continuing Legal Education .................................................................................. 6

Certification Exam ................................................................................................................... 6

Conclusions ...................................................................................................................................... 7

Paralegals as Legal Technicians ................................................................................................... 7

Limited License Legal Technicians Page 1

Introduction

About the Association

The Sacramento Valley Paralegal Association was formed in 1978 to promote and

enhance the paralegal profession through educational and professional development

activities. The Association represents over 150 paralegals from throughout the

Sacramento region, and is managed by an 11-member board with more than 160 years’

experience in the legal field. We are also affiliated with state and national paralegal

associations.

As a professional association, part of our mission is to represent the interests of our

member paralegals in matters that impact our vocation. To that end, this position

statement is being issued to convey our stance on the Limited License Legal Technician

(Legal Technician) concept.


The Limited License Legal Technician would be a new class of legal professional, able to

provide finite legal services directly to the public. Although it is not a new one, the

Legal Technician concept has risen to the forefront of our collective consciousness in

recent years. As courts have become increasingly backlogged and more consumers are

in need of low-cost assistance, the need for a new type of legal professional has become

greater than ever.

The Association would support legislation that creates a new class of legal professional,

the Limited License Legal Technician, provided that such legislation includes:

1. Strict standards for education, experience, and continuing legal education,

beyond those currently required for paralegals and legal document assistants

and which allow certain qualified paralegals to become Legal Technicians;

2. A certification mechanism, including some combination of testing, education,

and experience, which demonstrates the Legal Technician’s expertise in

particular aspects of the law and allows them to practice only in those areas;

3. Clearly defined areas of the law in which Legal Technicians can practice,

including penalties, remedies for violations, and an enforcement mechanism; and

4. Ethical standards, including continuing education requirements, penalties,

remedies for violations, and an enforcement mechanism; and

5. Bonding or insurance requirements.


Background

The national legal community has long recognized the need for a new class of legal

professional. With the adoption of regulations for two distinct professions, the paralegal

and the legal document assistant, California has been a leader in modernizing the

provision of legal services. Although we have these classes of legal professionals,

neither of them is analogous to the potential Legal Technician.

Paralegals

California paralegals are regulated by Business and Professions Code section 6450 et

seq., which was adopted in 2000. The code defines a paralegal as “a person who… is

qualified by education, training, or work experience, who either contracts with or is

employed by an attorney, law firm, corporation, government entity or other entity, and

who performs substantial legal work under the direction and supervision of an active

member of the State Bar of California…or an attorney practicing law in the federal

courts.” The code also delineates duties typically performed by paralegals, including:

case planning, development, and management; legal research; compiling and utilizing

technical information to make an independent decision; and representing clients before

a state or federal administrative agency. Paralegals are prohibited from: providing legal

advice; representing clients in court; and selecting, explaining, drafting or

recommending the use of any legal document to any person other than an attorney.

Legal Document Assistants

California has a second class of non-lawyer legal professionals, the legal document /

unlawful detainer assistant. These professionals are regulated by Business and

Professions Code section 6400 et seq., adopted in 2002. A legal document assistant is a

person who “provides…any self-help service to a member of the public who is

representing himself… in a legal matter.” Self-help services include: completing legal

documents in a ministerial manner, selected by a person who is representing himself in

a legal matter, by typing or otherwise completing the documents at the person’s specific

direction; providing general published factual information that has been written or

approved by an attorney; and making published legal documents available to a person

who is representing himself; and filing and serving legal forms and documents at the

specific direction of a person who is representing himself. Legal document assistants

are prohibited from providing “any kind of advice, explanation, opinion, or

recommendation to a consumer about possible legal rights, remedies, defenses, options,

selection of forms, or strategies.”

Legal Technicians

Currently, only attorneys and legal documents assistants are able to serve the general

public; paralegals may only work for attorneys. Legal document assistants are very

limited in the scope of services they can provide, and are barred from providing the type


of assistance many individuals require. Individuals needing any kind of legal

assistance, no matter how routine, minute, or non-controversial, must consult an

attorney. While we recognize and respect the value of an attorney’s education and

skills, the Association believes there are certain, limited areas of the law in which non-

lawyers can effectively provide legal assistance to the public. There are two existing

systems to which we can look for guidance.

Canada: Licensed Paralegals

Canadian paralegals have been offering services directly to the public since 2007. They

are able to work either with or without the supervision of an attorney; the duties they

may perform differ depending on whether they are supervised. Licensed paralegals are

similar to Legal Technicians; only licensed Canadian paralegals can independently

represent clients. Services licensed paralegals may provide include: selection, drafting,

completion, or revision of a document for use in a proceeding; negotiating a party’s legal

interests, rights, or responsibility with respect to a proceeding; and representing a party

before certain courts.

Washington State: Limited License Legal Technicians

Washington State was the first to implement a formal policy for Legal Technicians, with

its Supreme Court’s adoption of Order No. 25700-A-1005. This order created standards

and an oversight structure for limited license Legal Technicians. The Washington order

establishes certification requirements, proscribes allowable activities under certain

circumstances, specifically prohibits certain lawyerly activities, and requires continuing

certification and financial responsibility. The Washington Supreme Court also

established a Limited License Legal Technician Board to provide oversight to the new

profession.



Need

There is no question that California’s burdened legal system needs relief. A significant

portion of legal consumers are low-and-middle income individuals who simply cannot

afford to hire an attorney. Instead, these individuals seek assistance from legal aid

(which cannot even begin to serve the massive number of potential clients it receives),

paralegals (who have to turn them away), and legal document assistants (who can only

fill out and file paperwork with direction from the very individuals who need

assistance). When an individual has exhausted these avenues and found no relief, they

have no choice but to file pro se. The consequences of so many pro se filing include

improper filings, court delays, and an overtaxed court system. In a 2010 survey, nearly

1,200 state trial judges from around the country indicated that the weak economy has

increased the number of litigants representing themselves; the judges say litigants are

doing a poor job and burdening courts already hurt by cutbacks.1

There is an additional, more sinister result of this shortage of assistance—the unlicensed,

unqualified “legal consultant” or “paralegal” (not to be confused with actual paralegals)

who provide “legal assistance” to consumers who have nowhere else to turn. Despite

numerous disclaimers on our website and telephone system, the Association still

receives several calls a month from consumers seeking legal assistance. While we turn

them towards attorneys, there is no doubt in our minds that they are pursuing assistance

from less professional avenues. These unscrupulous individuals plague and do great

harm to our legal justice system, yet they persist in their endeavors. The Legal

Technician profession could help combat this problem by providing proper assistance to

consumers who would otherwise seek out services from fraudulent legal assistants.

Services Provided

Services to be provided by Legal Technicians should be clearly defined and limited.

Moreover, services should be confined to certain practice areas. Allowable assistance to

be provided directly to clients should include:

Factual and legal research and presentation of results to clients

Informing clients of processes, procedures, and deadlines for filings and service

of process

Providing clients with a docket or deadline list for the case

Reviewing and explaining documents from opposing parties

Drafting correspondence

Selecting, preparing, and filing Judicial Council and local forms

1 Terry Carter, “Judges say Litigants are Increasingly going Pre Se—at Their Own Peril,” Trials & Litigation,

http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/judges_say_litigants_increasingly_going_pro_se--at_their_own_/.

http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/judges_say_litigants_increasingly_going_pro_se--at_their_own_/


Advising clients as to necessary documents and evidence, including exhibits and

declarations, and explaining how those documents may affect the case

Assisting clients in obtaining documents and records (including medical records,

financial records, and recorded documents)

Representing clients before a state or administrative agency and certain courts

Obtaining and providing copies of court files from completed cases

Allowable practice areas and courts should include:

Name/gender changes

Small claims

Uncontested divorce

Unlawful detainer

Restraining orders

Traffic infractions and misdemeanors

Criminal record expungement

Modification of exiting support orders

Resolving fees and fines

Qualifications and Conditions for Admittance

The Association firmly believes that a combination of education (including MCLE),

experience, and certification is necessary for Legal Technicians. Experience is a key

component, as no amount of education is a true substitute for experience. These

qualifications will create a true professional field, and ensure that the public is well-

served by Legal Technicians.

Education and Experience

We believe, at a minimum, the following qualifications for education and experience

should apply. As used below, experience means performing duties similar to those of a

Legal Technician under the supervision of an attorney, which experience would be

certified by an attorney licensed to practice in the State of California:

Completion of an associate’s degree or equivalent program in paralegal / legal

assisting studies approved by the American Bar Association and a minimum five

years’ experience in the applicable practice area; or

Completion of a bachelor’s degree in paralegal / legal studies approved by the

American Bar Association and a minimum four years’ experience in the

applicable practice area; or

Completion of a bachelor’s degree in any field, and a minimum six years’

experience in the applicable practice area; or

Completion of a bachelor’s degree in any field, a minimum three years’

experience in the applicable practice area, and passage of the Paralegal

Advanced Competency or Certified Legal Assistant exam.


Mandatory Continuing Legal Education

We would support the following continuing legal education requirements, to be

completed every other year commencing upon passage of a Legal Technician

examination (e.g. if a Legal Technician passed the exam on May 1, 2014, they would be

required to complete their education by March 31, 2016):

Four hours of mandatory continuing legal education in ethics

Four hours of mandatory continuing legal education in each practice area (if a

Legal Technician is licensed to practice name changes and small claims, they

would need a total of eight hours – four in name changes and four in small

claims)

Certification Exam

In addition to the educational, experience, and continuing legal education requirements,

Legal Technicians should be required to pass a certification test. Certification

examinations should be two-part: (1) ethics and basic procedures; and (2) specific

procedures and information relative to each practice area. Re-certification should be

required at two-year intervals.


Conclusions

The Association supports a program which would create a new class of legal

professional able to directly serve the public in a specific manner. We believe that this

program would enhance, not harm, the legal community and consumers.

Paralegals as Legal Technicians

Both of the existing Legal Technician-like professions are comprised of paralegals.

Paralegals are uniquely qualified to serve as Legal Technicians. Paralegals are educated

in the legal system, research methodology, calendaring procedures, identifying and

completing forms, and document drafting. In addition, we take ongoing mandatory

continuing education courses which hone our skills and keep our topical and ethical

knowledge current. Our education focuses on many of the hard and soft skills necessary

for Legal Technicians to properly represent clients.

In addition to technical expertise, paralegals are well-versed in the more practical

aspects of legal services. The decades of experience many of us have has given us an

unparalleled breadth and depth of knowledge. Seasoned attorneys rely on their

paralegals’ ability to locate forms, conduct legal research, and obtain records; while new

attorneys benefit from paralegals who know the proper terminology for pleadings and

courthouse locations. These, and other skills paralegals have are easily adapted to

working directly with clients, and could be put to great use as a Limited License Legal

Technician.

National Federation of Paralegal Associations 1

PO Box 2016 Edmonds, Washington 98020

www.paralegals.org

The National Federation of Paralegal Associations

Position Statement on Non-Lawyer Practice The National Federation of Paralegal Associations (NFPA) believes it is in the best interest of the NFPA to be prepared to respond to potential legislation or court rules providing for non-lawyer practice.

NFPA believes that paralegals can and should play an integral role in the delivery of cost-

effective legal and law-related services. Therefore, the NFPA adopts the following position statement regarding Non-Lawyer Practice, to be implemented consistent with the NFPA Resolution 01S-04 which imposes certain limits on advocacy efforts in those states with the NFPA voting member associations:

The NFPA supports legislation and adoption of court rules permitting non-lawyers to deliver limited legal services provided that such legislation or court rules include:

1. Exceptions from the unauthorized practice of law.

2. That non-lawyer practice rules contain minimum criteria as set forth herein.

3. Advanced competency testing as to specialty practice area and limitation of practice as prescribed by laws, regulations, or court rules.

4. Notwithstanding the foregoing, paralegals who choose to work in a traditional setting under the supervision of an attorney shall be specifically exempt from any such non-lawyer practice laws, regulations, or court rules.

BACKGROUND.

Over twenty years ago, the NFPA stated that “In examining contemporary legal institutions and systems, the members of the NFPA recognize that a redefinition of the traditional delivery of legal services is essential in order to meet the needs of the general public. We are committed to increasing the availability of affordable, quality legal services, a goal which is served by the constant reevaluation and expansion of the work that paralegals are authorized to perform. Delivery of quality legal services to those portions of our population currently without



www.paralegals.org

access to them requires innovation and sensitivity to specific needs of people”1 The growing gap between those few citizens who can afford quality legal services and those who must proceed without any legal representation whatsoever has gained increased prominence in recent years. Many observers now recognize the desirability and fairness of increasing the availability of basic legal services to a much broader portion of our community. Certain states have adopted or are considering legislation or judicial rules allowing non-lawyers to provide limited legal and law-related services directly to the public (such non-lawyers are commonly referred to as Legal Document Preparers (“LDP”)).2 RECOMMENDATIONS

In order to facilitate improved access to the legal system, qualified non-lawyers must be

permitted to provide limited legal and law-related services directly to the public, including guidance and/or direction within a certain scope, according to their expertise, experience, and education. To be effective, any new non-lawyer regulation plan must include authority for qualified non-lawyers to provide a limited scope of legal advice under conditions which balance public protection with consumers’ individual needs.

However, the NFPA believes that the following four areas must to be addressed in any

non-lawyer practice regulation plan: 1) minimum licensing criteria; 2) practice state; 3) exemptions for traditional paralegals working under the supervision of an attorney; and. 4) specific exceptions from unauthorized practice of law (UPL) statutes (if any).

1. Minimum Registration Criteria

Currently, the educational standards in the State of Arizona for a person to become an

LDP3 are far below what NFPA and the American Association for Paralegal Education (AAfPE) deem acceptable for entry into the paralegal profession. The Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, recognizes that it is no longer common for a person to become a paralegal 1 Legal Assistant Today/Winter 1985 2 Arizona Code of Judicial Administration § 7-208; California Business and Professions Code§§ 6400-6401.6; 2005 IL S.B. 335, Illinois 94th General Assembly

3 Arizona minimum criteria. 3. Initial Certification a. Eligibility for Individual Certification. The board shall grant an initial certificate to an individual applicant who meets the following qualifications: (1) A citizen or legal resident of this country; (2) At least 18 years of age; (3) Of good moral character; and (4) Comply with the laws, court rules, and orders adopted by the supreme court governing legal document preparers in this state. (5) The applicant shall also possess one of the following combinations of education or experience: (a) a high school diploma or a general equivalency diploma evidencing the passing of the general education development test and a minimum of two years of law related experience in one or a combination of the following situations: (i) under the supervision of a licensed attorney; (ii) providing services in preparation of legal documents prior to July 1, 2003; (iii) under the supervision of a certified legal document preparer after July 1, 2003; or (iv) as a court employee; (b) a four-year bachelor of arts or bachelor of science degree from an accredited college or university and a minimum of one year of law-related experience in one or a combination of the following situations: (i) under the supervision of a licensed attorney; (ii) providing services in preparation of legal documents prior to July 1, 2003; (iii) under the supervision of a certified legal document preparer after July 1, 2003; or (iv) as a court employee; (c) a certificate of completion from a paralegal or legal assistant program that is institutionally accredited but not approved by the American Bar Association, that requires successful completion of a minimum of 24 semester units, or the equivalent, in legal specialization courses; (d) a certificate of completion from an accredited educational program designed specifically to qualify a person for certification as a legal document preparer under this code section; 6 (e) a certificate of completion from a paralegal or legal assistant program approved by the American Bar Association; (f) a degree from a law school accredited by the American Bar Association; or (g) a degree from a law school that is institutionally accredited but not approved by the American Bar Association.



www.paralegals.org

without formal paralegal education4. The North Carolina Bar Association and the North Carolina Supreme Court recently adopted a plan for certification of paralegals, which provides very broad authority for non-lawyer practice for those who meet the certification standards. 27 N.C. Administrative Code, Subchapter 1G, Paralegal Regulation.

Because paralegals often perform the same functions as an attorney, it is recommended

that paralegals attain a certain level of education and specifically, paralegal education. If this is the case for paralegals who work under the direct supervision of an attorney, then it is certainly necessary for those working directly with the public to attain at least the same. In fact, non- lawyers practicing directly to the public should be held to a higher standard than those working under the supervision of an attorney.

NFPA has resolved that any non-lawyer delivering legal and law-related services directly to the public meet the following minimum criteria:

a. Minimum post-secondary education standards as further described

on the attached Appendix A; and

b. Continuing Legal Education criteria consistent with NFPA's, the standards of which are described in the attached Appendix B; and

c. Attestation by an attorney licensed to practice law in that state as to the non-lawyers experience and work history; and

d. Fitness and Character criteria as further described on the attached Appendix C; and

e. Bonding or Insurance Requirements.

2. Practice Area and Practice State The types of services being provided by LDP’s in the States of Arizona and California

require specific practice area knowledge. However, the current laws and/or rules are for general certification. If LDP’s represent themselves as specialists in specific practice areas as Wills & Estates, Family Law, etc., then how will the consumer know that the LDP “specializing” in such areas has received only a general certification based on undefined law related experience? Further, with the growing use of the Internet and software technology there is a risk of LDP’s, including businesses, so certified, extending beyond the jurisdiction in which they are licensed to practice to offer legal and law-related services to unsuspecting residents of other states.

4 While some paralegals train on the job, employers increasingly prefer graduates of postsecondary paralegal education programs; college graduates who have taken some paralegal courses are especially in demand in some markets. There are several ways to become a paralegal. The most common is through a community college paralegal program that leads to an associate’s degree. The other common method of entry, mainly for those who have a college degree, is through a certification program that leads to a certification in paralegal studies. A small number of schools also offer bachelor’s and master’s degrees in paralegal studies. Some employers train paralegals on the job, hiring college graduates with no legal experience or promoting experienced legal secretaries. Other entrants have experience in a technical field that is useful to law firms, such as a background in tax preparation for tax and estate practice, criminal justice, or nursing or health administration for personal injury practice. See http://www.bls.gov/oco/ocos114.htm#training.



www.paralegals.org

Therefore, practice area and jurisdictional restrictions should be LDP Rule disclosure requirements. Additionally, any such LDP Rule should provide for disciplinary action of the LDP and consumers with remedies in the event the consumer is harmed by an LDP working outside the scope of his or her knowledge and jurisdiction.

3. Exemption for Paralegals Working Under the Supervision of an Attorney

Historically, paralegals work under the supervision of an attorney and unless such

paralegal applies and obtains licensure under a non-lawyer practice rule, he or she must be specifically exempt from such rule. Many traditional paralegals perform substantive legal work with very few restrictions because the work product is the responsibility of the supervising attorney. Attorneys have been able to provide lower cost services to their clients through the increased utilization of their paralegals. Without a specific exemption for traditional paralegals who work for and under the supervision of an attorney, there are substantial risks that the scope of work performed by traditional paralegals could exceed the limitations established by the non-lawyer practice laws and/or rules. Consequently, the fees associated with such work may be deemed non-recoverable. Equally important, the use of paralegals in a traditional setting may become limited by the parameters set forth in non-lawyer laws. Non-lawyer practice rules must be limited to those non-lawyers who deliver legal and law related services directly to the public without the supervision of an attorney.

4. UPL

If the intent of non-lawyer laws and/or rules is to create more choices for consumers to

obtain legal and law related services by providing an additional level of service provider, then it is imperative that the non-lawyer laws and/or rules include specific exemptions from unauthorized practice of law statutes or court rules. Since some states rely on court interpretations of broad practice of law definitions and unauthorized practice of law, the activities permitted under any non-lawyer practice law and/or rule, would be subject to interpretation by state courts. This is counterintuitive to the intent of the creation of non-lawyer laws and may prevent consumers from receiving the services required to effectively resolve their legal issues. For example, in the State of Arizona, an LDP can “prepare or provide legal documents without an attorney’s supervision.” In certain instances, the mere provision of a legal document may require a degree of legal judgment. Alternatively, if a consumer chooses the wrong legal document for his or her situation, what responsibility does the LDP have to advise against the use of such document? The activity (preparing and providing legal documents) is authorized by Arizona’s LDP Rule; however, the application of this activity is subject to interpretation by state courts. If a non-lawyer is practicing in accordance with the laws and/or rules enabling such practice, it is in the best interest of the consumer that the non-lawyer be permitted to fully provide services without fear of prosecution for the unauthorized practice of law.



www.paralegals.org

CONCLUSION NFPA wants to avoid the creation of a legal document preparer profession where people

purport to be paralegals, but who have neither the requisite education nor training recommended by paralegals and paralegal educators for entry into the paralegal profession.

NFPA desires to expand paralegal roles where qualified paralegals have alternate career paths.

NFPA desires to maintain the integrity of the paralegal profession and together with AAfPE, has worked to establish appropriate minimum paralegal education criteria, ethical standards, and Continuing Legal Education requirements.

NFPA desires to keep high standards intact. By allowing non-lawyers who have not met the minimum standards for entry into the paralegal profession to deliver legal and law-related services directly to the public or to identify themselves as paralegals, may jeopardize the integrity of the entire paralegal profession.

It has taken many years of hard work for paralegals to be recognized as professionals and

to establish paralegal industry standards that are becoming widespread today.

Any state seeking to regulate non-lawyers is to be commended for attempting to address the access to legal services crisis with the increased utilization of paralegals as an additional level of service providers.



www.paralegals.org

Prepared for the National Federation of Paralegal Associations by the Ad Hoc Committee on Non-Lawyer Practice. The Ad Hoc Committee on Non-Lawyer Practice was created by Resolution 05-, passed by the delegation at the 2005 Policy Meeting in Las Vegas, Nevada. The committee presented their draft position statement to the Board of Directors at the Summer Board Meeting held July 22-23, in Rochester, New York. The final position statement was presented to the Board of Directors at the Fall Board Meeting held via telephone on November 5, 2005.

The members of the Ad Hoc Committee on Non-Lawyer Practice were: Sandra Heintz.

Sandi is a paralegal with Mistick PBT and its affiliates, Mistick Construction, Insurance Restoration Services, Mistick Management, North Side Associates, Allegheny Millwork, Bridges Construction and Wood Street Commons. She is involved in contracts, litigation, corporate, real estate, insurance litigation and collections with Mistick and the various subsidiaries.

She is a graduate from the Duquesne University and received both the general and litigation

paralegal certificates and has been a member of Pittsburgh Paralegal Association since 1988. She currently is serving her third term as the NFPA Primary Representative. In addition, she

served two terms as PPA’s vice-president, co-chaired and chaired the Litigation Section, co-chaired the Paralegal/Attorney Dinner, attended the first Leadership Conference sponsored by NFPA, and has been a member of the board and various committees over the years. Patricia A. Junker.

Patricia A. Junker has been employed as a corporate paralegal since 1984. Currently, Patricia works in the business group of the Pittsburgh office of Klett Rooney Lieber & Schorling. Patricia specializes in commercial loan transactions and corporate compliance.

Patricia holds a Bachelor of Arts from the University of Dayton and received her paralegal

training from The Institute for Paralegal Training in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. For the past three years, Patricia has served as the Secondary Representative to the National

Federation of Paralegal Associations on behalf of the Pittsburgh Paralegal Association (“PPA”). Patricia also served as the Chair of the Education and Professional Development Committee of PPA. Kelli Wilcox.

Kelli Wilcox is employed as a full-time paralegal with the law firm Oles Morrison Rinker & Baker, LLP in Seattle, Washington. . She works with the Business Practice Group, primarily in the areas of business acquisitions, corporate law and real estate. She is a graduate, with honors, of the Paralegal Program at Highline Community College in Des Moines, Washington Kelli has also taught in Highline’s Paralegal Program and served as the Chair of its Advisory Committee.

Kelli has been involved with the Washington State Paralegal Association (WSPA) for several years, working diligently for two years to form and nurture the South King County Chapter, then serving two terms as President, during which she presented before the Practice of Law Board on paralegal regulation and before the American Bar Association with regard to the proposed definition of the practice of law on behalf of WSPA. Additionally Kelli has worked on WSPA’s committee to address Washington’s



www.paralegals.org

proposed Legal Technician Rule to ensure that qualified Paralegals play an integral role in the delivery of legal and law-related services.

Kelli now serves as WSPA’s CLE Chair, is the Vice President of Profession Development, and is the Association’s Primary Representative to the National Federation of Paralegal Associations. Wayne D. Akin.

Wayne Akin is a litigation paralegal with the law firm Miller Nash, LLP in Portland, Oregon. His primary practice is in securities litigation, but he also works in civil, construction, and employment litigation, insolvency and reorganization, and creditors' rights. Wayne also handles garnishments, background checks, skip-tracings, online information retrieval, asset evaluations, discovery and judgment searches, and trial preparation. Wayne also manages a number of the firm's document hubs and serves as his firm's Summation expert. Previously Wayne focused on intellectual property with an emphasis on patents.

Wayne has been involved with the Oregon Paralegal Association (OPA) and the National Federation of Paralegal Associations (NFPA). He has served as a chairperson of OPA's Intellectual Property Specialty Group, as a member of OPA's Board of Directors for two years, as OPA's Treasurer for two years, and was recipient of OPA's Outstanding New Member Award for 2000-2001. For the NFPA, Wayne served two and a half years as Special Research Coordinator. Wayne has written a number of articles for OPA's Paragram newsletter and NFPA's The National Paralegal Reporter.

Wayne currently serves as NFPA's Vice President and Director of Positions and Issues where he is responsible for the Bar Association, Case Law, Ethics & Professional Responsibility, Legislative, Special Research, Regulation Review, and Unauthorized Practice of Law Research Coordinators, the Ad Hoc Committee on Non-Lawyer Practice and the Ad Hoc Committee on Mandatory Paralegal Regulation, and serves on the Ethics Board.

© 2005 The National Federation of Paralegal Associations



www.paralegals.org

Appendix A

Post-Secondary Education and Experience Standards

A candidate applying for certification under a non-lawyer practice rule shall: (a) Have graduated from a paralegal/legal assistant program that consists of a

minimum of 90 quarter hours (900 clock hours or 60 semester hours) of which at least 45 quarter hours (450 clock hours or 30 semester hours) are substantive legal courses; or and that is approved by the American Bar Association (ABA) or a program which is in substantial compliance with ABA guidelines and shall have six (6) years substantive paralegal experience; or

(b) A bachelor's degree in any course of study obtained from an institutionally

accredited school and three (3) years of substantive paralegal experience; (c) A bachelor's degree and completion of a paralegal program which said paralegal

program may be embodied in a bachelor's degree; and two (2) years substantive paralegal experience or

(d) A post-baccalaureate certificate program in paralegal/legal assistant studies, or (e) Four (4) years substantive paralegal experience on or before December 31, 2000.



www.paralegals.org

Appendix B

The National Federation of Paralegal Association Continuing Legal Education (CLE) Standards

NFPA accepts the following definition of Continuing Legal Education:

Continuing Legal Education shall include seminars on substantive legal topics, or topics applicable to substantive law issues, or must be oriented to the specific nature of the paralegal profession, such as enhancing computer skills or research techniques, increasing paralegal management skills, issues related to, or affecting, the paralegal profession.

Further, Continuing Legal Education includes authorship of articles by an individual paralegal, including research time; and/or speaking to paralegals regarding substantive law issues or topics oriented to the specific nature of the paralegal profession, including preparation time for such presentation; and attendance and successful completion of law-related classes at community colleges, colleges and universities.

NFPA recognizes continuing legal education offered by the following groups to be approved without further review by NFPA or a designated Coordinator: all bar associations, either mandatory or voluntary; National Association of Legal Assistants, Inc.; American Alliance of Paralegals, Inc.; Inns of Court; and Courts of all jurisdictions within the United States.



www.paralegals.org

Appendix C

Fitness and Character Model

Applicants should be of good moral character based upon the following circumstances:

1. Whether the applicant has been convicted of a felony or comparable crime as defined by an individual state that does not have felony designations; OR 2. Whether the applicant has been suspended or disbarred from the practice of law in any jurisdiction; OR 3. Whether the applicant has been convicted of the unauthorized practice of law in any jurisdiction; OR 4. Whether the applicant is, for reasons of misconduct, currently under suspension, termination, or revocation of a certificate, registration, or license to practice by a professional organization, court, disciplinary board, or agency in any jurisdiction. An applicant shall be rejected if any of the acts set forth in paragraphs 1-4 immediately

above apply. An applicant should have the right to appeal a denial based on the provisions of these criteria. When considering the appeal, it should be considered, but shall not be limited to, the nature of the act, rehabilitation, the time that has transpired since the act, and any other extraordinary circumstances.

1

Greenman, Teri

Subject: RE: Non-lawyers practicing law - Comments for your public hearing

From: Joan Medeiros [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, April 08, 2013 10:08 AM To: Greenman, Teri Subject: Non-lawyers practicing law - Comments for your public hearing I do not believe that it is beneficial to the general public to consult with non‐attorneys for legal advice. I have had to undone so many messes caused by notaries, “document preparers,” financial advisers, etc., who did not have to go to law school, do not have to be a member of the State Bar, do not have to purchase malpractice insurance, and are not subject to any disciplinary actions by the State for misconduct. As an association that represents the attorneys in California, I am astonished that you would consider actions that would be detrimental to the honest attorneys who are trying to make a living in California. In the past, when I have reported non‐attorneys practicing law to the State Bar, I was told that “you did not have jurisdiction,” and that I should call the local police. Really? Is that consumer protection? I am very much opposed to this proposal.

Joan M. Medeiros Attorney at Law 3550 Watt Avenue, Suite 140 Sacramento, CA 95821 (916) 729‐1307 www.sacramentoestateplans.com

1

Greenman, Teri

Subject: RE: comments to limited practice proposal

From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, April 08, 2013 2:58 PM To: Greenman, Teri Subject: comments to limited practice proposal I guess the moral of the story is that there are so many person engaged in the unlawful practice of law (just filling out forms) and there are no funds to prosecute them so to "improve the justice system" the state should now ignore this criminal conduct and now permit these unlicensed (untrained) individuals to continue to practice law. Filling out forms is the practice of law when you give advise as to lets say the date of separation in a dissolution of marriage form. The state no doubt will collect a registration fee to permit this former criminal conduct to continue. Steve Temko, atty Certified by the State Bar in family law and appellate

1

Greenman, Teri

Subject: RE: Limited Licensing

From: Cricket Tryon [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, April 08, 2013 3:23 PM To: Greenman, Teri Subject: Limited Licensing Dear Teri Greenman, Please be advised that I received your email address and was advised that written comments could be submitted for those unable to attend the public meeting to weigh in on the proposed limited‐license practice of law. Please see to it that my voice is heard in expressing a staunch opposition to the proposal of limited licensing of non‐attorneys for purposes of form and/or pleading preparation. There are thousands of us in practice who have devoted countless hours in the pursuit of admission to the California Bar. This task was neither an easy nor an inexpensive one. According to my understanding, law school, the moral character exam, and the California Bar Exam have been put into place as a form of consumer protection‐ a way of attempting to ensure that those of us who are licensed to practice in California have undergone numerous rigors of testing, research, ethics, and legal training. According to those who had a hand in my legal education, all these obstacles and challenges were put into place in order to protect the public. The reason being that even checking a box on a form could result in demise in a legal proceeding if done carelessly or without the wherewithal to understand the consequences of doing so. For example, perhaps subject matter jurisdiction is lacking‐ an aided pro per could languish through court proceedings for years under the impression that the ultimate outcome is a solid and binding judgment‐ only to find out later that there was never subject matter jurisdiction and therefore any orders are void. This kind of thing could result not only in a gross waste of the court’s time, but also damage to any parties who may have relied upon the Judgment that ended up being issued. I always felt (pre‐bar admission) that once I achieved admission to the California Bar things would get much easier in the way of pursuit of a livelihood that I could rely on to bring in enough to at least pay back my student loans. I found that it has been quite the contrary. Not only am I required to fulfill the Continuing Legal Education requirements, but am accountable to the California Bar, to any would‐be clients, even those who I’ve only consulted with. I also am required to carry malpractice insurance, which is almost as costly as my office rent. I work in a profession where I can be sanctioned, fined, disciplined, and perhaps even in egregious cases, go to jail or lose my license. All these expenses, costs, liability were sold to me as consumer protection issues/ expenses. How the State Bar could have all these requirements of attorneys, refuse to give reciprocity to other States (thereby preventing us from receiving reciprocity) and give off the ‘we’re so exclusive because we’re concerned for the welfare of the people in the State of California’ and yet at the same time have a proposal on the table such as the ‘limited‐license’ that is at issue now completely blows my mind. Please pass it on to anyone and everyone who cares to hear input from real attorneys who have sacrificed greatly in order to become part of this so‐called elite and noble institution/ calling that this limited licensure proposal is going to make fools of us all‐ every one‐ not to mention the effect on the general public in being able to find someone who, for pennys on the dollar, can dole out uninformed and untrained advice and who may very well end up costing them far

2

more in the long run. In the event that the State Bar would be willing to pay all of my student loans, I would be happy to roll up the carpet, shut the doors and move to another State where I can live inexpensively, where I don’t have to pay more and more money just for the right to earn a living doing something that I have endured torment in order to have the privilege of doing, and where I can be assured that as a consumer, perhaps in need of an attorney someday, don’t have to deal with the incompetence that could come from allowing anyone and everyone to be part of things. My analogy... ‘hey guys, we’ve got med school drop outs who can perform your surgery for one‐tenth of the price being how health care is too costly’ ‐ in the end we’re going to have a lot of fresh organs up for grabs because the rigors of this level of education/ specialization have been put in place for a reason. It’s an insult that I even have to draft an email to weigh in on something like this. Thank you for kindly presenting my ever so humble opinion to the powers that be in the committee. Sincerely, Cricket Tryon Law Office of Cricket Tryon 3115 Fourth Avenue San Diego, CA 92103 619.325.1982 www.tryonlaw.com

CONFIDENTIAL TRANSMISSION The contents of this e-mail message including any attachments, are intended solely for the use of the person or entity to whom the e-mail was addressed. It contains information that may be protected by the attorney-client privilege, work-product doctrine, or other privileges, and may be restricted from disclosure by applicable state and federal law. If you are not the intended recipient of this message, be advised that any dissemination, distribution, or use of the contents of this message is strictly prohibited. If you received this e-mail message in error, please contact the sender by reply e-mail. Please also permanently delete all copies of the original e-mail and any attached documentation.

1

Greenman, Teri

Subject: RE: Limited License Working Group Meeting: My comments for what they are worth

From: Daniel Grunbaum [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, April 08, 2013 5:03 PM To: Greenman, Teri Cc: SDCBA Family Law Section Subject: Limited License Working Group Meeting: My comments for what they are worth Teri: I received an email informing me that the State Bar will hold its first public meeting next week to discuss limited-practice licensing, an idea that could ultimately create a new class of technicians able to give basic legal advice on routine matters, and that the meeting of the Limited License Working Group will be held from 10 a.m. to 1:30 p.m. on Thursday, April 11, on the fourth floor of the State Bar's office at 180 Howard St. in San Francisco. Laura Ende gave me your email address and advised me that written comments may be emailed to you. I cannot attend the meeting for public comment, nor can dozens/hundreds/thousands (my estimation) of other attorneys who would like to vigorously oppose the unlicensed practice of law. The meeting, in my opinion, should be about how to prosecute persons unlawfully practicing law in California by drafting legal pleadings which by their very nature demand giving legal advice by a non-lawyer. Please consider that my opinion is that the Limited License Working Group should prevent irreparable harm to befall the legal profession in California by endorsing "a new class of technicians able togive basic legal advice on routine matters", and that the Group should instead be considering prosecuting those individuals already committing this crime. Thank you for registering my complaint. Daniel Grunbaum -- Daniel Grunbaum Attorney At Law LAW OFFICES OF DANIEL GRUNBAUM 5464 Grossmont Center Drive, Third Floor La Mesa, California 91942 Telephone: 619-469-9477 www.sandiegofamilymatters.com CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: The information contained in this e-mail and attached document(s) may contain confidential information that is intended only for the addressee(s). If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby advised that any disclosure, copying, distribution or the taking of any action in reliance upon the information is prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please immediately notify the sender and delete it from your system.

1

Greenman, Teri

Subject: RE: limited practice licensing

From: Georgia Williams [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, April 08, 2013 6:01 PM To: Greenman, Teri Subject: limited practice licensing Dear Teri: This note is from me – not my firm. The group asked for opinions of lawyers and here is my “from the trenches” view. I cannot attend next week’s meeting on the limited-practice licensing scheme. I wish I could. However, I will be busy attending to the needs of my clients. Consequently, I can only respond by e-mail. This is a terrible idea. Other brighter attorneys have already listed the reasons why we hate this idea so much. These include the lack of quality control and consumer protection, unfairness to the attorneys who have dedicated their careers and lives to following the rules, and the expense involved in the practice of law. As it is, I spend a great deal of time and my clients’ money fixing mistakes of the “attorney supervised paralegal services.” In the days of form pleading, checking a box is giving legal advice. I am now trying to reunite a family who relied on non-advice advice and the children are hundreds of miles from their fit and distraught mother. Law school applications are at a 30 year low. If you make the faux-practice more financially appealing than the genuine practice, you destroy one of the few remaining motivations for bright young people to enter a field of work with long hours and clients who occasionally try to hurt you. It is already difficult to look a young woman in the eye and tell her to come into the practice I’ve built, when I know my secretary with the AA degree will financially outperform this woman with the JD from a good school for at least a decade. Take away the promise of a decent living after that first decade and that young woman will get her MBA instead. If you truly want to help, perhaps we should more aggressively prosecute people who practice law without a license. Use the proceeds from the fines to create a meaningful and available low income legal assistance program which does not force attorneys to become poor as a result of trying to assist the poor*. Licensing the illegal practice of law allows bad advice to become more available to those most in need of and least able to get good counsel. Please do not do this. Georgia Williams *This is not hyperbole – take the income of the normal legal aid attorney, deduct license fees, MCLE and malpractice insurance and you are very close to the income eligibility for food stamps. God forbid the attorney has student loans too.

1

Greenman, Teri

Subject: RE: Limited Practice Licensing- horrible idea

From: Bernadette C. Hilgeman, Esq [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, April 09, 2013 12:02 PM To: Greenman, Teri Subject: Limited Practice Licensing- horrible idea

Ms. Greenman, I cannot attend next week's meeting on the limited-practice licensing scheme. However, I will be very busy attending to the needs of my clients. Consequently, I can only respond by e-mail. I believe many of my colleagues are also very busy and may not be able to take the time to respond at all, but would feel the same way I do. This is a terrible idea! You have probably heard many good reasons thus far and I concur with them all. My specialty is fixing broken/mismanaged/wrongly administered Trusts and Probates. I am constantly fixing other attorneys mistakes and more often fixing "attorney supervised paralegal services" mistakes. To truly assist the people with problems of affordable and competent legal representation, the Bar and the State need to focus on reporting and prosecuting those who practice in this manner or without a license. My last case the Bar allowed the gentleman to retire with no pending charges. While it got him off the case and allowed me to get in and move the case along, it did nothing for the over $50,000.00 lost in his fees alone, let alone the 3 years it took me to fix his problems and messes created by his incompetence. Please take these statements as representing many if not almost all of my colleagues and do not advance this idea one more step. Bernadette C. Hilgeman Esq 7777 Alvarado Rd. Ste 203 La Mesa, CA 91941 619‐298‐6599 [email protected]

1

Greenman, Teri

Subject: RE: Limited Practice Licensing

From: Thea Glazer [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, April 09, 2013 11:30 AM To: Greenman, Teri Subject: Limited Practice Licensing Ms. Greenman, I am not an attorney, but am a member of the family law section of the San Diego County Bar Association and have written several articles for the CA Bar’s Family Law News. That said, I am not sure if you want my comments, but here they are, just in case. As a financial expert, clients come to me, often after the fact with horrific MSA’s in hand drafted by paralegal services or non-lawyer mediators. The financial effects are frequently quite awful. The fortunate ones come before they sign and I urge them to go to a consulting family law attorney. I would like to see stricter regulation on the mediators practicing law without a license and the paralegal “divorce in a day” type of services. The financial damage can be quite serious and I have the clients to prove it. I would be against making it easier for such poorly trained folks to practice. I do understand the cost saving emphasis, but penny wise and pound foolish can really be harmful unless a couple has an extremely simple marital estate comprised of an apartment and two cars. Thank you for your considering my “non-lawyer” take on this. Very truly yours, Thea Glazer Thea Glazer, CFP, CDFA MS Accounting Glazer Financial Advisors Divorce Financial Consulting 16870 West Bernardo Drive Ste. 400 San Diego, CA 92127 P: 8584850814 F: 8584851765 E: [email protected] www.glazerfinancialadvisors.com

1

Greenman, Teri


From: Brian Kretsch [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, April 10, 2013 10:48 AM To: Greenman, Teri Subject: Limited Practice Licensing California State Bar: Why are you are working to hurt, rather than help your members? I am a bankruptcy attorney and I represent debtors and bankruptcy trustees. Bankruptcy is not the simple area of law you apparently believe that it is. Once a case is filed, it brings in all the legal issues the debtor may be involved in. You are supposed to help prevent the unauthorized paractice of law not license it. I have been faithfully paying my membership dues for 21 years now for this in return?

Brian A. Kretsch, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF BRIAN A. KRETSCH, A.P.C. 110 West "C" Street, Suite 809 San Diego, CA 92101 Ph: 619-696-6629 Fax:619-696-9076 E-mail:[email protected]

This communication (including any attachments) may contain privileged or confidential information intended for a specific individual and purpose, and is protected by law. If you are not the intended recipient, you should delete this communication and/or shred the materials and any attachments and are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, or distribution of this communication, or the taking of any action based on it, is strictly prohibited.

1

Greenman, Teri


From: Nancy Stassinopoulos [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, April 10, 2013 9:52 AM To: Greenman, Teri Subject: Limited Practice Licensing Dear Ms. Greenman: I am unable to attend the public meeting to submit my comments in person. Please consider my written comments in this e‐mail. As I understand the proposal for limited‐practice licensing, it would create a new class of technicians licensed by the State Bar, who would be able to give basic legal advice on routine matters. Apart from the fact that this proposal would further undermine the status of licensed attorneys, the public would suffer even more harm from bad “legal” advice from non‐lawyers. I am opposed to the idea of limited‐practice licensing because it will increase the problem of the unlawful practice of law by so‐called paralegals and document preparation services in family law cases. As I understand it, the argument by the proponents is that if such “para‐lawyers” are licensed by the State Bar, they will be subject to State Bar discipline if the Bar is given the power to regulate them. The Bar is already overburdened with regulating and disciplining attorneys. Adding to the Bar’s regulatory burden will not solve the problem. Attorneys who do not practice family law may consider family law a field that is ripe for the licensing of “legal technicians.” In California, the forms that are required to file a petition for dissolution of marriage may appear routine, but they are not. For example, the Petition requires a statement of the date of marriage and date of separation. Usually there is no dispute over the date of marriage, although that issue can arise if the parties were married in another country or went through a commitment ceremony in California that did not meet the legal requirements for a valid marriage. Date of separation, however, can be a minefield for the unwary. It can affect the characterization of property as community or separate, the duration of spousal support, and the division of retirement benefits. This is just one example out of hundreds or mistakes that can be made by filling out forms incorrectly. In 32 years of practice, I have seen dozens of cases where non‐lawyers calling themselves paralegals, document preparers or mediators have prepared botched documents, from Judicial Council forms to Marital Settlement Agreements. Many of these mistakes cannot be fixed by an attorney, and if they can be corrected, it is only at great expense. Giving non‐lawyers a license and attempting to regulate them will only empower them, because they will be able to advertise by stating they are licensed by the State Bar. They will charge more money, commit more mistakes and harm more people. Rather than creating a new class of “para‐lawyers” who will continue to harm and mislead the public, the State Bar should work with prosecutors to develop a strategy for the prosecution of businesses and individuals who are practicing law without a license. Respectfully submitted,

2

Nancy Stassinopoulos, Esq. Certified Family Law Specialist State Bar of California, Board of Legal Specialization Stassinopoulos & Schweitzer, LLP 591 Camino de la Reina, Suite 802 San Diego, California 92108 Telephone (619) 688‐6505 Facsimile (619) 688‐3985 www.cadivorcelaw.com

comments received -...

Documents