Regulation and licensing of Paralegals
Regulation:
The National Association of Licensed Paralegals
"The collective voice of the Paralegal profession"
Protection by Regulation
Collectively, Paralegals form the largest section of the legal profession and they also exist, across the board, in many areas in commerce, industry and the public sector. Whereas there are some 98,000 practising Solicitors there are estimated to be over 150,000 unadmitted staff who carry out direct 'fee earning' work. Out of this number only some 6,500 are Legal Executives. The rest are, by definition, 'Paralegals'. When it is considered that The Law Society, in its Research and Policy Planning Unit's Study No. 23, entitled "Paralegal Staff in Solicitors' Firms", found that the majority of Paralegals work with minimum supervision and as many as 76% of those questioned by the Study only discussed the more complex cases with the person to whom they were responsible, it can be seen how large a portion of the legal work undertaken by the legal profession as a whole is, in fact, carried out by Paralegals.
It can be seen, therefore, that the role of the Paralegal is crucial to the practical and economic sustainability of the provision of legal services by Solicitors' practices. They are an extremely important part of the legal profession. but nevertheless an underestimated one.
In 2003 the Government commissioned Sir David Clementi to look into the question of regulating the provision of legal services and to report on his recommendations. The Clementi Report was not a report on the regulation of professions, per se, but a regulation of the provision of legal services. Are legal services better provided by professions that are self-regulatory, by professions that are regulated by the Government, or something in between? Our difficulty during the consultation period was that nowhere in Sir David Clementi's original Scoping Study were Paralegals brought into the equation and it was considered that to leave matters to the Clementi Report would leave us still in the wilderness.
If, as was the case, Paralegals were not originally considered by Sir David Clementi, with the consequence that he had no clear understanding of their import to the legal profession, what could have been the consequences? So far as areas of the practice of law (i.e. what the Scoping Study termed 'regulatory gaps') are concerned, the likelihood would have been that they would have been included in those areas that could only be undertaken by Solicitors (because Solicitors are regulated). Those gaps, however, are endless. There are only very few areas of law which, by statute, can only be carried out by those under the umbrella of regulating bodies. If Paralegals were, however, already regulated how much easier would it be for this to be recognised and used to plug the regulatory gaps. Our view was that the economic potential of Paralegals to the profession as a whole would be better facilitated if Paralegals were seen to be making steps to ensure a proper regulated and professional approach.
The question of rights of audience and other extension of rights, which would make the Paralegal more functional within the legal profession, were not within the remit of Dr. Clementi and his Report. They do not fall within the regulatory gaps with which the Report was (inter alia) concerned. Such matters are already regulated by statute. The extension of such rights is governed by the provisions of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990 whereby the Department of Constitutional Affairs (DCA) can grant extensions to those groups who qualify. Clementi had no remit to change this and it was not within the scope of the Report. We have declared our intention to the DCA that upon our self-regulation we would be making a submission for extended rights (e.g. rights of audience, of undertaking conveyancing and probate services) and we have been encouraged by them to do so. Who else is going to do this if there is no body who is willing to impose a form of regulation to ensure that if it happens there will be control over those who are.
Accordingly, following the publication of the Clementi Report and a period of consultation, the Association introduced self-regulation for the Paralegal profession and Licensing. There were no objections from any other arm of the profession.
The Association has always taken the view, right from its establishment in 1987, that it is essential that Paralegals strive for personal and professional excellence. They should possess integrity, professional skills and dedication to the improvement and expansion of the Paralegal role in the delivery of legal services. The Association also believes that the best way to maintain this is that all allied legal professions remain autonomous, Paralegals retain primary control of the development of the Paralegal profession but with close collaboration with the other sectors.
The main difficulty had been that this part of the profession (unlike Legal Executives) have not, until the Association introduced regulation, been specifically identifiable. The title 'Paralegal' on its own, is a generic term and does not distinguish the skilled from the unskilled. The Association considers that in order to take full advantage of all that fee earning unadmitted staff in law practices have to offer, skilled Paralegals should have a distinct identification which could only come about by regulation. To anyone, therefore, proving eligible under the criteria laid out by the Association, the Association will issue a Licence to be identified as a Paralegal belonging to, satisfying the criteria of, and being bound by the rules and codes of The National Association of Paralegals.
Without self-regulation Paralegals as a body, are not able to expand to properly fulfil their true potential to enable Solicitors to concentrate on the more complex cases and to help increase the productivity of the firm and to increase the efficiency of the legal profession and the confidence of its clients.
There is also a continuing need for the development of career Paralegals. This is especially so with the increasing number of Law Graduates in recent years unable to gain a training contract or afford the LPC. The Association hopes that a specifically identifiable Paralegal branch of the legal profession will encourage Universities and Undergraduates alike to seriously consider the career as a Paralegal as a viable alternative. One of the difficulties in this, as identified by the Trainee Solicitor's group, is that there have previously been no regulations or guidelines relating to Paralegals, or indeed even a definition to clarify the exact status of someone undertaking such a roll. Indeed, Universities are starting to realise the necessity for an alternative career route for their undergraduates. The University of Sunderland in 2005, instituted, in conjunction with the Association, a programme whereby undergraduates could choose to take the Association's Higher Diploma in Paralegal Practice as an additionality to their degree course so that, on graduation, they graduate with the joint qualifications plus Graduate Membership of the Association. The University of Bradford is to implement the same programme in 2006 and other Universities are showing interest.
It is hoped that the self-regulation of Paralegals and the introduction of the Licensed Paralegal will be supported by all branches and members of the legal profession and that they will support the Association in its aim to provide a fair and proper recognition and identification of the Paralegal as an integral part of the legal profession as a whole.
The Association will continue its present Membership structure of Student/Affiliate, Associate an Fellow and in addition, those that are eligible will also be 'Licensed'.
It can be seen, therefore, that the role of the Paralegal is crucial to the practical and economic sustainability of the provision of legal services by Solicitors' practices. They are an extremely important part of the legal profession. but nevertheless an underestimated one.
In 2003 the Government commissioned Sir David Clementi to look into the question of regulating the provision of legal services and to report on his recommendations. The Clementi Report was not a report on the regulation of professions, per se, but a regulation of the provision of legal services. Are legal services better provided by professions that are self-regulatory, by professions that are regulated by the Government, or something in between? Our difficulty during the consultation period was that nowhere in Sir David Clementi's original Scoping Study were Paralegals brought into the equation and it was considered that to leave matters to the Clementi Report would leave us still in the wilderness.
If, as was the case, Paralegals were not originally considered by Sir David Clementi, with the consequence that he had no clear understanding of their import to the legal profession, what could have been the consequences? So far as areas of the practice of law (i.e. what the Scoping Study termed 'regulatory gaps') are concerned, the likelihood would have been that they would have been included in those areas that could only be undertaken by Solicitors (because Solicitors are regulated). Those gaps, however, are endless. There are only very few areas of law which, by statute, can only be carried out by those under the umbrella of regulating bodies. If Paralegals were, however, already regulated how much easier would it be for this to be recognised and used to plug the regulatory gaps. Our view was that the economic potential of Paralegals to the profession as a whole would be better facilitated if Paralegals were seen to be making steps to ensure a proper regulated and professional approach.
The question of rights of audience and other extension of rights, which would make the Paralegal more functional within the legal profession, were not within the remit of Dr. Clementi and his Report. They do not fall within the regulatory gaps with which the Report was (inter alia) concerned. Such matters are already regulated by statute. The extension of such rights is governed by the provisions of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990 whereby the Department of Constitutional Affairs (DCA) can grant extensions to those groups who qualify. Clementi had no remit to change this and it was not within the scope of the Report. We have declared our intention to the DCA that upon our self-regulation we would be making a submission for extended rights (e.g. rights of audience, of undertaking conveyancing and probate services) and we have been encouraged by them to do so. Who else is going to do this if there is no body who is willing to impose a form of regulation to ensure that if it happens there will be control over those who are.
Accordingly, following the publication of the Clementi Report and a period of consultation, the Association introduced self-regulation for the Paralegal profession and Licensing. There were no objections from any other arm of the profession.
The Association has always taken the view, right from its establishment in 1987, that it is essential that Paralegals strive for personal and professional excellence. They should possess integrity, professional skills and dedication to the improvement and expansion of the Paralegal role in the delivery of legal services. The Association also believes that the best way to maintain this is that all allied legal professions remain autonomous, Paralegals retain primary control of the development of the Paralegal profession but with close collaboration with the other sectors.
The main difficulty had been that this part of the profession (unlike Legal Executives) have not, until the Association introduced regulation, been specifically identifiable. The title 'Paralegal' on its own, is a generic term and does not distinguish the skilled from the unskilled. The Association considers that in order to take full advantage of all that fee earning unadmitted staff in law practices have to offer, skilled Paralegals should have a distinct identification which could only come about by regulation. To anyone, therefore, proving eligible under the criteria laid out by the Association, the Association will issue a Licence to be identified as a Paralegal belonging to, satisfying the criteria of, and being bound by the rules and codes of The National Association of Paralegals.
These criteria are:
- Knowledge (of both substantive law and procedure. All acceptable qualifications will be considered),
- Competence (by showing the necessary period of qualifying experience),
- Dedication (by an undertaking to observe, perform and be bound by the Association's rules of conduct and their grievance and disciplinary procedures),
- Good standing (by a 'certificate of fitness'),
- Continuing Professional Development. (at present 12 hours per year).
Without self-regulation Paralegals as a body, are not able to expand to properly fulfil their true potential to enable Solicitors to concentrate on the more complex cases and to help increase the productivity of the firm and to increase the efficiency of the legal profession and the confidence of its clients.
There is also a continuing need for the development of career Paralegals. This is especially so with the increasing number of Law Graduates in recent years unable to gain a training contract or afford the LPC. The Association hopes that a specifically identifiable Paralegal branch of the legal profession will encourage Universities and Undergraduates alike to seriously consider the career as a Paralegal as a viable alternative. One of the difficulties in this, as identified by the Trainee Solicitor's group, is that there have previously been no regulations or guidelines relating to Paralegals, or indeed even a definition to clarify the exact status of someone undertaking such a roll. Indeed, Universities are starting to realise the necessity for an alternative career route for their undergraduates. The University of Sunderland in 2005, instituted, in conjunction with the Association, a programme whereby undergraduates could choose to take the Association's Higher Diploma in Paralegal Practice as an additionality to their degree course so that, on graduation, they graduate with the joint qualifications plus Graduate Membership of the Association. The University of Bradford is to implement the same programme in 2006 and other Universities are showing interest.
It is hoped that the self-regulation of Paralegals and the introduction of the Licensed Paralegal will be supported by all branches and members of the legal profession and that they will support the Association in its aim to provide a fair and proper recognition and identification of the Paralegal as an integral part of the legal profession as a whole.
The Association will continue its present Membership structure of Student/Affiliate, Associate an Fellow and in addition, those that are eligible will also be 'Licensed'.