|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
PLS Home
> Marketing Education Today
> Historical Perspective
|
|
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
A Historical Perspective: Then and Now
By Enika Pearson Sculze
Founder of Legal Assistant Today
Was starting a magazine for paralegals a viable idea? Looking back, I can°t believe we had to ask. In the early °80s, my partners and I sat in my living room contemplating whether our idea was feasible or folly. If it were feasible, where would we go for money to produce even the first issue? The estimated cost was $13,000, which was more than we had in our combined bank accounts.
If we went ahead, what should the magazine be called? The Paralegal? The Legal Assistant? Paralegal suggested more independence, but the term ¿legal assistantî was, in the 1980s, better known. The only definition we could find for paralegal was by the Department of Labor in a brochure defining what this person is not, ¿A paralegal is not a lawyer in a wheelchair.î No definition was found for legal assistant. We liked the sound of Legal Assistant Today, so that is what the name became, and is todayÞ.
In the ´80s, as now, two groups dominated the profession: the National Association of Legal Assistants (NALA) and the National Federation of Paralegal Associations (NFPA). One is dedicated to voluntary certification of legal assistants to enhance their credentials in the market place; the other in favor of mandatory regulation of the paralegal profession as a whole.
Today, 20 years later, how different are the issues and how different is the profession?
Legal Assistant Today is still here, getting better every year and serving the profession well. It provides a balanced forum for a profession still fractionalized by two names and two national associations. The question of regulation and licensing, which we covered in the September/October 1984 issue is still with us today. Quoting from that 1984 issue:
¿The prevailing winds seem to be carrying legal assistants° work very close to the Þ attorneys. In fact, some paralegals get so close they can see their reflections in the lawyers° protective shield called UPL. UPL stands for Unauthorized Practice of Law; if legal assistants cross a certain fuzzy line, the UPL shield falls on their toes and crushes their pocket book. That is the issue at the center of the Great Licensure Debate.
Licensure Þ is a ´process by which a governmental agency grants, to persons meeting predetermined qualifications, rights to perform certain functions or to engage in a given occupation.° Licenses can be taken away, especially for things like UPL.î
In 2002, several states have begun or have already adopted their own specific standards for paralegals: California, Texas, Florida and Louisiana, with Kentucky soon to follow. Many state bars, courts and associations have also stepped into the breach on this issue (November/December 2001 LAT). In those states licensing may be the next step, but state-specific licensing has its downside. What if a paralegal licensed in Texas works on a case in California, which has different licensing requirements? Will the paralegal be permitted to do the required work? What if this same paralegal moves to California? Can that paralegal even work as a paralegal in California?
Attorneys licensed by only one state often have to hire local counsel for out-of-state cases, increasing costs. Can we learn from their mistakes and find a better solution for paralegals?
In contrast, education and training for paralegals has changed dramatically over the past 20 years. On-the-job paralegal training while working as a legal secretary was once the norm, but not anymore. Where there were a handful of paralegal schools at LAT°s inception, we now find more than 600. Some are American Bar Association (ABA) approved, but many are not. Some are excellent, some not.
Under the guidance of the American Association for Paralegal Education (AAfPE), many public and private colleges have added excellent paralegal programs. Community college training is still the most popular, but, particularly in urban areas, the demand for a four-year degree is standard. To respond to that need, two-year and four-year colleges are entering into articulation agreements to allow their students to transfer without losing credits.
Educational and legal materials also have become more sophisticated. Paralegal textbooks, the publishing field on which I have focused since selling Legal Assistant Today, have improved tremendously and are more practical and more specific. They apply directly to the subject at hand, containing both theory and practice. No longer must paralegals wade through massive case law and theory contained in law school textbooks so heavy that they require both hands to hold and cost a week°s worth of rent.
However, the most dramatic changes in the paralegal profession have occurred in technology. Twenty years ago, many paralegals insisted on keeping their hands off the keyboard in a desire to appear more professional and less clerical. This reluctance to ¿typeî kept many of them behind the technology curve. Others realized that the future lay in document and case management, and that paralegals could drive the development of technology in the law office.
I have great expectations for this ever-evolving profession over the next 20 years. NALA and NFPA will probably never merge, because their philosophies are just too different, but I hope for ongoing dialog and a spirit of cooperation enhanced through regular meetings of the Conclave attended by other legal groups who have a stake in the paralegal profession, such as AAfPE, the Association of Legal Administrators, the Legal Assistant Management Association, and the ABA°s Standing Committee on Legal Assistants.
I am sure technology will continue to assume an ever-expanding role in the law office. But since technology leads to isolation, the need for interpersonal skills and gathering places will increase as well. Paralegals who work from their homes or as independent contractors must avoid isolating themselves from colleagues. For this reason, paralegal associations and listservs will continue to be vital networking avenues.
I see paralegals using their skills and credentials to move into career fields where they are no longer called ¿paralegals.î It has been common for years for lawyers to use their legal training to move into politics, diplomacy, and business. These law school graduates never practice law, or practice it only for a short time. Paralegals are already making similar career moves in areas such as contract administration, real estate, academia and government service, and I predict more will do so.
I anticipate paralegals to continue (for they are already on their way) to become more professionally assertive. They will continue becoming managers, entrepreneurs, lobbyists, public servants, and developing partnerships (such as pro bono partnerships) with bar associations, and educating the public to the fact that paralegal use means more cost-effective services. The glass ceiling of UPL will exist until laws change, but designing one°s career with another name opens up many new horizons.
The evolution of the legal assistant profession is on the shoulders of the legal professionals who define it, and the potential for growth is limitless. Whether it°s regulation, education, technology or expanded roles, the legal assistant community has the potential to create an every more bountiful future for itself.
Excerpted from Legal Assistant Today
September/October 2002
|
|
|
|
