ParalegalGateway's Weblog

Pro se, Pro bono on Paralegal Course List

Anatoly Smolkin does paralegal work during his full-time, paid internship with Gallagher, Evelius & Jones LLP in Baltimore. But for three hours each Friday during the fall, the senior at Stevenson University is also working for Maryland Volunteer Legal Services as part of his paralegal studies degree.

“The clients are completely different and the objectives are completely different,” said Smolkin, 21, who plans to attend law school. “It’s good to know what’s out there.”

Smolkin is one of 11 Stevenson paralegal students working at MVLS or the Pro Se Family Law Program in Baltimore County Circuit Court during the fall semester. It’s the fifth year the university has sent select undergraduate students to volunteer in local legal clinics, but the first year it has worked with MVLS.

While it has had interns from law schools before, MVLS Director of Pro Bono Programming Candie Deming said no one could remember undergraduate students working there.

“We’re trying to fill this need which is also good for getting real-world experience,” said Hillary Michaud, coordinator of the legal studies department at the school, formerly Villa Julie College. “As much as we give to the community, the students get back in learning.”

From taxes to family law

The class work for the three-credit course is primarily clinic work; students spend three to five hours on site a week, keep a journal and write a final paper summarizing their experience, Michaud said. Students undergo on-campus workplace training prior to starting at the clinics and meet with other students and professors throughout the semester to discuss their clinic work. Professors or paralegals or attorneys employed at the clinics serve as on-site supervisors.

Michaud, who has a law degree and is a CPA, first devised the program to focus on tax law. Two students originally helped low-income men and women prepare their tax returns at drop-in sites through the Baltimore Cash Campaign. (The tax law program had 15 students last year.) She added a family law  element last year because of a need for such pro bono services.

Judith M. Hamilton, an adjunct professor and Towson family law attorney, prepares the students assisting the pro se program. She reviews the family law forms used and circuit court procedures with her students prior to their working in the courthouse.

“They get a crash course in Maryland family law and the Maryland Rules of Procedure,” she said.

Richard Abbott, the family law administrator in Baltimore County Circuit Court who oversees the pro se program, first used the students last year after Hamilton offered to help.

The paralegal students are responsible for reviewing and handing out forms and troubleshooting for clients waiting to see an attorney, Abbott said.

Rachel Letourneau, the lead pro se attorney, calls the students a “frontline defense,” capable of answering clients’ administrative questions so their time with attorneys is spent on their legal problems.

“They have a solid working knowledge in the basics of family law,” said Letourneau, a solo practitioner in Towson. “It’s a lot easier for them to be helpful.”

Expanding roles

Deming also praised the students’ work at MVLS, saying they’re “eager and they come in very professional.”

MVLS has slowly increased what the Stevenson students are doing in the office, from building client files and locating cases to eventually handling courthouse client intake, Deming said. She also plans to let students observe court hearings and attend training sessions as regular MVLS staffers do.

“Anything we can take them to, we will,” she said.

Jennifer Milam, 20, spends three hours each Wednesday at MVLS doing “a little bit of everything,” she said.

Milam, a senior, interned at a law firm last December through February. She is still unsure if she wants to attend law school but is glad she is getting the chance to work at MVLS.

“It’s a good opportunity to get hands-on experience in a different work environment,” she said.

Deming said the partnership not only exposes students to nonprofit work and provides real-world training, but has also brought energy and new perspectives to the office.

“There’s something about having eager students come in that makes the people on staff enlivened,” she said.  (Source>>>)

Paralegal Running for Santa Rosa Commission Weighs In

Jim Williamson survived a primary election battle to face the Nov. 4 general election against Stacia LaDue.

Williamson, a Republican, defeated incumbent Tom Stewart in the Aug. 26 primary. He now faces LaDue, a No Party Affiliation candidate, for the four-year term for the Santa Rosa County Commission's District 1 seat. The winner will be sworn in Nov. 13. The annual salary for the job is $56,686.

Here are the responses each candidate gave to a News Journal candidate questionnaire:

Stacia LaDue

Stacia LaDue

• Age: 48.

• Residence: 4910 Mulat Road, Milton.

• Telephone: 341-1118.

• Occupation: Retired paralegal; currently works with student pilots at Whiting Field Naval Air Station.

• Political party: No affiliation.

• Political experience: None.

• What makes you best qualified for the seat? A Santa Rosa County taxpayer who has 20-plus years' experience in assisting taxpayers, working with government officials and developers in matters affecting quality-of-life issues. I know how it works, what doesn't work and I know how to fix it.

• What are the top two issues in this race, and what will you do to address them? Government spending and jobs. My priority is listening to my constituents, reducing taxes and cutting the pork out of government spending. Cuts in county government start from the top down, not vice versa as in the past. Department heads must be held accountable for their departments' actions or non-action. I will put in place guidelines to measure the results of all entities the county uses to promote jobs and industry growth.

Jim Williamson

• Age: 62.

• Address: 4351 Berryhill Road, Pace.

• Telephone: Work: 623-0282; home: 994-0646.

• E-mail: CJWmson@aol.com

• Web site: www.jimwilliamson.nexo.com.

• Political party: Republican.

• Political experience: Eight years as a Milton city councilman; five years as a Santa Rosa county commissioner.

• Occupation: Electrical contractor.

• Education: Some college

• What makes you best qualified for the seat? Thirty-two years of running a successful small business and past public service.

• What are the top two issues in this race, and what will you do to address them? 1) Budget: In these tough economic times we need to look at ways to cut the budget while still providing the necessary services to the public. 2) Job market: We need to review our current economic development policies to see what changes can be made in order to attract industry to our county. (Source>>>)

Paralegal Soldiers in Iraq Help Comrades Vote

Army Sgt. David Hodge Special to American Forces Press Service

Released : Monday, October 06, 2008 5:45 PM

By Army Sgt. David Hodge Special to American Forces Press Service

FORWARD OPERATING BASE FALCON, Iraq, Oct. 6, 2008 - Two Multinational Division Baghdad soldiers streamlined the voting process for hundreds of servicemembers and civilians here Oct. 3-5.

Army Sgts. Asa Rubman and Rachel Littenberg, paralegal specialists assigned to the 4th Infantry Division's Headquarters and Headquarters Detachment, 1st Brigade Combat Team, said they noticed some apathy among soldiers toward voting in the November general elections and decided to spearhead a voting drive.

"It started out with me being annoyed with the system," said Rubman, a native of Watertown, Conn. "I registered and tried to get my ballot in May and it never came, so I started putting up flyers in case other people didn't get theirs."

The flyers posted throughout the brigade headquarters building enticed other soldiers to stop by the legal office and take 10 minutes to exercise their right to vote.

Even after posting flyers, the two decided they were not reaching out to enough soldiers and decided to take the advice of Army Command Sgt. Maj. Michael Bobb, the brigade's senior enlisted leader, and set up a table inside the dining facility.

"People normally have a block of time set aside when they go to chow, so it is easier for them to register to vote then and just eat their grilled cheese a little faster," Rubman said.

The duo gave soldiers the opportunity to vote in the dining facility for three days, spending six hours a day there while work piled up back at the office. They also provided the necessary paperwork, envelopes and useful information regarding each state's voting regulations.

In all, the effort assisted more than 550 servicemembers and civilians throughout the three-day drive, Littenberg said.

"Everybody was really into it," said Littenberg, who hails from Huntington, N.Y. "I watched a major and a specialist have a 20-minute conversation while they were completing their ballots about who was a better choice for president."

Setting up in the dining facility was great, and it motivated many soldiers to vote, said Army Staff Sgt. Devon Pierce, an infantryman assigned to the brigade personnel security detachment.

Pierce, who is on his third deployment, said this is the first one in which he has found the time to vote.

"I was glad to see the legal office took the initiative to put up flyers and set up a table in the dining facility," said Pierce, a native of Mobile, Ala.

(Army Sgt. David Hodge serves in Multinational Division Baghdad with the 4th Infantry Division's 1st Brigade Combat Team.) (Source>>>)

Paralegal Compensation: A Primer to Permissible and Impermissible Pay Structures

by Peter G. Golden

Last month, we highlighted the federal overtime law as it applies to paralegals, concluding that in most cases, paralegals are not exempt from the Fair Labor Standards Act’s overtime laws and must be appropriately compensated for any hours work in excess of 40 in a given week (1).   This month, we’ll tackle the ethical boundaries of creatively compensating paralegals for something other than the mere quality and quantity of the work performed.

Has your firm ever proposed to give you a cut of a contingency fee recovery on a case you’ve been assigned to?  Ever been on a job interview where the lawyer promised you a referral fee for any case you brought to the firm as part of the overall compensation package?  Well, these compensation arrangements can sure seem enticing, but do your state’s rules of professional responsibility allow for them? Probably not.

While the rules of professional conduct are not identical in every state, in virtually all states, general “fee splitting” or specific sharing of fees received from a particular matter is not allowed. Thus, lawyers may not, by advance agreement, make contingency payments to paralegals based on the outcome of a case. For example, your boss likely cannot, within the bounds of professional responsibility, promise to pay you a bonus equivalent to 5% of the amount of attorneys’ fees recovered in a particular matter. This, and similar fee splitting arrangements have been near universally rejected by state bar associations and boards of ethics. The rationale for prohibiting this conduct is to “protect the lawyer’s professional independence and judgment.” (2)

But to the contrary, attorneys may compensate paralegals based on the quantity and quality of their work and the value of that work to the law practice. (3) Thus, in addition to regular compensation, paralegals generally may also be paid discretionary merit based bonuses or bonuses based on the overall success of the firm or practice area. (4) Thus, a lawyer or law firm that has a profitable year may award a paralegal a bonus based on the overall success of the firm, or the paralegal’s contribution or extraordinary work on a particular case.

Separate from the fee splitting issue, is the issue of referral fee payments. In a nutshell, lawyers are prohibited from paying paralegals for referring legal work to the firm. The rationale for prohibiting an attorney from sharing a percentage of attorney’s fees with a paralegal is that it may lead to improper interference in a case by the paralegal. (5)   In fact, it was referral fee payments to non-lawyers and charges of fee splitting that ultimately resulted in disciplinary action against attorneys in one highly successful New Jersey law firm. In 2000, Tomar Simonoff, a well known personal injury firm in New Jersey dissolved after allegations surfaced that it paid referral fees to paralegals, secretaries and other non-lawyers and that it conditioned the bonus of an office administrator on office revenue. During proceedings to determine whether the attorneys involved acted improperly, numerous firm employees came forward to claim that paralegals and secretary referral fees were a standard part of the compensation package. Ultimately, the New Jersey Disciplinary Review Board recommended that two attorneys in the firm have their license suspended for one year. Thus, for attorneys, the punishment for providing non-lawyers with improper forms of compensation can be significant. (more>>>)

Regulation of Paralegals Within the Legal Community

by Edwina Bernita Robinson

Regulation of the Paralegal industry continues to be a hot topic and one of much debate in the legal community, even amongst Paralegals.  What would regulation really mean to the Paralegal industry?  Well, as discussed at the Regulation Conference in Indianapolis, Indiana, hosted by the Indiana Paralegal Association (IPA) in April, in could possibly mean anything we want.  Whether you are a fan of regulation or not, it is definitely something that must be discussed, if we are to take ourselves seriously in this career, and especially if we expect others to take seriously.  Think of any job or career that you expect a person considered to be a “professional” to have.  Nurses, CPA’s, Licensed Contractors, and even Court Reporters all have something Paralegals do not…regulation.  These “professionals” have a means by which to prove they are qualified to do the job they are hired to do and are deserving of the title they use.

In the legal industry, this type of consideration is not given to Paralegals.  So much so, that it is inappropriate to capitalize the “p” in Paralegals because it is not a proper noun.  Paralegals, legal assistants, legal secretaries and the like are often grouped together. Some firms have Paralegals while other firms have legal assistants. Some firms place their own criteria on who they will hire to serve in a Paralegal position, some firms apply the title liberally as they see fit.  Is this a fair method by which to base your career and also your life?  Should a Paralegal with 10 years of experience be placed in the same category as a secretary?  Whether they should or not, they often are.  Because the state of Georgia (my home state) does not place any guidelines or regulation on who can use the title, firms and companies of all sizes can determine for themselves, who gets to be a Paralegal.

While there are voluntary certification exams Paralegals can take to bring distinction to their position and afford them a title that is not bestowed on everyone, these exams are not recognized by the state of Georgia, nor many Georgia employers, as a significant process in recognizing the professionalism of a Paralegal.  For far too long, Paralegals have been seen as those that cannot go to law school, or those waiting to go to law school.  While this could very well be the case for some who choose to work as a Paralegal, the greater percentage of Paralegals, enter into a career field that they choose to continue, as would an attorney or a doctor.

Regardless of your personal feelings about regulation, it is necessary to understand your own value.  Your education, your experience and your professionalism are things that are not shared by every person who calls themselves a Paralegal.  Isn’t that worth something to you?  This doesn’t mean that the state needs to set guidelines for the specific type of work Paralegals are allowed to do or delineate duties amongst Paralegals or Attorneys, but the state and Paralegals themselves must start some where.  Something as simple as deciding who can use the title, “Paralegal,” or if that is even the preferred title at all will take Paralegals a long way.  The first step is to unify the industry. If all Paralegals in the state of Georgia are united under one title, recognized by the state, we can then begin to make the more important decisions.  Applying a professional title to our trade, will give us more respect and recognition in our workplace, but we have to start somewhere.

If you are interested in learning more about regulation within our field please contact either myself at GAP_CLE@live.com or Tenitra Adams at Tenitra.Adams@ogletreedeakins.com.

Edwina Bernita Robinson is a corporate paralegal at Sutherland, Asbill & Brennan in Atlanta, Georgia and serves on the Board of the Georgia Association of Paralegals as well as the Gate City Bar Association, Paralegal Section.