The Licensing Debate.
by Steve W. Schneider
One of the hot issues in the paralegal profession is the question of whether paralegals should be licensed. Licensing proposals have been debated in at least ten state legislatures, although none have been enacted as yet. The interest in licensing stems from the growing number of independent paralegals and legal technicians. These practitioners offer limited paralegal services to the public without the supervision of an attorney. There are two main proposals to control these types of practitioners.
General Paralegal Licensing Proposals
General licensing proposals apply to all paralegals. Any paralegal, whether practicing under the supervision of an attorney or not would be required to meet certain licensing criteria. These criteria generally include a minimum education requirement and expectations of continuing education after licensure. Paralegals would not have to be certified by a parent organization. The limitations on paralegal duties would remain the same, except that some proposals would allow paralegals to appear in court on behalf of clients. No general licensing proposal would allow paralegals to give legal advice.
Limited Paralegal Licensing Proposals
Limited paralegal licensing proposals are directed toward those paralegals who practice without the supervision of an attorney. These proposals allow the freelance or legal technician paralegal to provide paralegals services on routine legal matters. Legal technicians could handle simple divorces, will executions, real estate transactions, and bankruptcy filings without the supervision of a lawyer, and they would also be allowed to give legal advice to clients on these limited matters.
Split of Opinion
The dispute over how to respond to these proposals has divided the paralegal profession. Each major organization has a different set of concerns about paralegal licensing. These positions are an indication of the evolving understanding of the proper role of the paralegal in the American legal system.
The American Bar Association. The ABA opposes the mandatory licensing of paralegals, and it states that the obligation of attorney supervision is sufficient protection for the public. The ABA believes that allowing paralegals to be licensed will create confusion because some members of the public might believe that a licensed paralegal can offer legal advice. In addition, some attorneys predict an increase in the cost of legal services because lawyers will be forced to hire paralegals with more education who demand higher salaries.
The National Association of Legal Assistants. The NALA also opposes the mandatory licensing of paralegals. Although the NALA has an established process for certifying paralegal competence, the organization believes the process should be voluntary. Of primary concern to the NALA are its many members who might not qualify as paralegals under any proposed licensing plan.
The National Federation of Paralegal Associations. The NFPA supports the mandatory licensing of paralegals. The NFPA also has an established procedure for certifying paralegal competence, but it regards this as a supplement to mandatory licensing. The NFPA believes that licensing will increase the access of the poor to legal services by allowing paralegals to handle routine matters without the supervision of an attorney. The NFPA also believes that the current lack of licensing allows many unqualified persons to practice as paralegals. The NFPA sees licensing as a means of raising the standards of the profession while eliminating unqualified practitioners.
