AGENDA TOPIC NO. 6
2015 ANNUAL MEETING
Honolulu, Hawaii
Submitted by: Linda Odermott, RP®,Certification Ambassador, NFPA Regulation Review Coordinator
MaryAnn Ivie, RP®, NFPA Primary
Brenna Dickey, NFPA Secondary
Association: Oregon Paralegal Association (OPA)
Co-Sponsors:Arkansas Paralegal Association (APA)
Dallas Area Paralegal Association (DAPA)
Georgia Association of Paralegals (GAP)
Hawaii Paralegal Association (HPA)
Kansas Paralegal Association (KPA)
Minnesota Paralegal Association (MPA)
Paralegal Association of Northern Virginia (PANV)
Philadelphia Association of Paralegals (PAP)
South Jersey Paralegal Association (SJPA)
Tampa Bay Paralegal Association (TBPA)
Paralegal Association of Wisconsin (PAW)
Date:August7, 2015
Bylaw:N/A
Position Statement Requested:
Request a Position Statement from NFPA on the concept of Licensed Legal Technicians and other non-attorney programs being created to bridge the gap in providing legal services across the country.
History and Current Trends:
Washington State Bar Association (WSBA) created a Board to implement the Limited Licensed Legal Technician (LLLT) Program based upon the Rule 28 (as amended) adoptedby the Washington State Supreme Court which allows individuals who are not attorneys and who qualify through education, experience, and examination to be licensed in a limited manner to practice law. The first practice area to be licensed is family law and includes a very limited scope of tasks that can be completed by the LLLTs. More practice areas are expected to follow.
The requirements to apply to become a LLLT include: 18 months of experience as a paralegal under a licensed Washington attorney; an associate’s degree in paralegal studies from an American Bar Associationapproved program or national paralegal certification through one of the national associations through a limited time waiver by December 31, 2016 as defined by the WSBA.
The inaugural class of seven paralegals recently passed the first Legal Technician exam on May 11, 2015. They are setto receive their licenses soon and will begin practicing in the near future.
The LLLT Board recently submitted to the Washington Supreme Court, amendments to Rule 28, which included: updates to the exam requirements, the addition of Rules of Professional Conduct, allowing a LLLT joint ownership of a law firm, creating a separate ethics exam requirement, the use of the NFPA PCCE as the core examination for the program, and other recommended changes. The Washington Supreme Court approved the amendments to APR 28 which became effective on February3, 2015[1].
The Oregon State Bar (OSB) formed a task force in May 2013, which spent a year and a half meeting and studying the issue. The task force issued a final report including the support and recommendation that the Oregon State Bar move forward with the concept of a legal technician included in larger concept to address the access to justice gap. The OSB Board of Governors (BOG) referred the report to the Governance and Strategic Planning Committee for further review and recommendations. The Committee met in May, 2015, to attend a presentation from the WSBA regarding the creation and current status of Washington’s LLLT program[2].
On March 6, 2013, the California State BarBoard of Trustees formed the Limited License Legal Technician Working Group. After extensive research and a number of meetings, the group recommended further study of the concept.[3] At its November 15, 2013 meeting, the Board of Trustees authorized the creation of the Civil Justice Strategies Task Force which set a number of hearings for 2015 to address the following issues[4]:
- Hearing I: Examining the Causes - March 26th (10:00 AM - 4:00 PM) (Los Angeles)
- Hearing IIA: Access to Justice Obstacles and Success - April 30 (10:30 AM - 3:30 PM) (San Francisco)
- Hearing IIB: Access to Justice Obstacles and Success - May 28 (10:30 AM - 3:30 PM) (Los Angeles)
- Hearing III: New Solutions - June 18 (10:30 AM - 3:30 PM) (Los Angeles)
- Hearing IV: Cost of Legal Education - August 26 (10:30 AM - 3:30 PM) (San Francisco)
- Hearings V & VI: Prepare Action plan - October 20 & November 13 (10:30 AM - 3:30 PM) (Los Angeles)
Recently, New York Court of Appeals’ Chief Judge Jonathan Lippman advocated for New York to institute a “Court Navigator Program” which trains non-attorney, college-student volunteers to provide free assistance to pro se parties in housing and consumer debt casesand are located inside the courthouses. The courts are praising the success of this program in reducing the courts’ backlog and overall helping the pro se litigants navigate the court processes. On February 17, 2015, Chief Judge Lippman announced his intention to propose additional legislation to expand the role of these non-attorney navigators[5].
Similarly to the current issue, in 2005 when document preparers were first entering the profession, NFPA passed the following resolution:
05-8
WHEREAS, it is in the best interest of NFPA to be prepared to respond to potential legislation or court rules providing for legal document preparers.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That NFPA supports legislation permitting non-lawyers to deliver limited legal services provided that such legislation includes, interalia, the following:
1. That non-lawyer practice rules should contain exceptions from the unauthorized practice of law.
2. That non-lawyer practice rules should contain the following minimum criteria:
a. Minimum post-secondary education standards;
b. Continuing Legal Education criteria;
c. Attestation by an attorney licensed to practice law in that state as to the non-lawyers experience and work history;
d. Fitness and Character Model
e. Bonding or Insurance Requirements
3. Advanced competency testing as to specialty practice area and limitation of practice as prescribed by laws, regulations, or court rules.
4. That paralegals can and should play an integral role in the delivery of cost effective legal services. 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 laws, regulations, or court rules.
FURTHER RESOLVED: That the NFPA Board of Directors (or a committee thereof) is hereby authorized and directed to draft a position statement incorporating the above referenced positions for use on an as needed basis and in accordance with Resolution 01S-04, which imposes certain limits on advocacy efforts in those states with NFPA voting member associations; and
FURTHER RESOLVED: That the aforesaid position statement shall be drafted and completed within six (6) months of the adoption of this resolution and that the final position statement shall be distributed to the Primary and Secondary Representatives and the President of each NFPA voting member association via electronic mail.
Expected Future Timeline:
It is unclear if other states will begin using legal professionals in a LLLT program or expand the use of non-attorneys in similar programs designed to bridge the gap in accessing justice, but it is clear that states are researching the issue; with more states creating working groups or reaching out to the Washington State Bar’s LLLT Board to start the conversation. WSBA Executive Director, Paula Littlewood and LLLT Board Chair, Steve Crossland are routinely traveling the nation to talk about the success of the LLLT program in Washington. The time is now for NFPA to provide its opinion on this issue, as Mr. Crossland and Ms. Littlewood recently stated in their presentation at the 2015 NFPA Joint Conference talking about how to fix the access to justice issue, “If not this, then what? If not now, then when?”
Detailed Description of Request:
This Agenda Topic asks NFPA for a Position Statement on the concept of Licensed Legal Technicians and other non-attorney programs being created to bridge the gap in providing legal services across the country.
- Specifically, does NFPA support the concept of a licensed legal technician or non-attorney provider program (also called legal professionals) that provide limited legal services defined by scope and other requirements such as the Washington Rule 28 LLLT Program?
- If in support of such programs, what guidelines and restrictions (if any) would NFPA recommend and/or support for each state considering rolling out such a program? and
- Additionally, sponsors of this measure request that NFPA appoint anad hoccommittee to research the issue and present a detailed report, that includes model language and model requirements to be included in the position statement,directly to the NFPA Board within nine months of this request in order for the Board to respond and ask for any additional information from the committee, for the purposes of an approved draft position statement on this topic from the Boardprior to the 2016 NFPA Annual Policy Meeting
- The delegates of NFPA will vote on a resolution adoptingthe draft position statement submitted by the ad hoc committee and approved by the NFPA Board, including the model language, at the 2016 Annual Policy Meeting.
Pros:To continue its place as the leader of the paralegal profession, NFPA shouldpublish a position statement regarding the concept of LLLTs in place as the delivery and access of legal services to the publiccontinues to evolve. If a local bar association were to request input from NFPA on this or a related issue, it would be incredibly timely to have one already in the works in order to respond to any such request, as well as to have model language for any such program. It would also be to the benefit of NFPA’s member associations and individual members to know NFPA’s views on this issue.
Cons:Unclear.
Financial Cost:
No expected costs. According to NFPA Treasurer, NFPA budgets for virtual Goto Meeting expense, so there will not be a cost for hosting three (3) committee meetings of 1 hour each in duration.
Number of Volunteers and Estimate of Hours Needed:
Most of the work could be done via email. Volunteers needed: Vice President and Director of Profession Development or the Vice President and Director of Positions and Issues and the Vice President & Director of Paralegal Certification will oversee the committee with the assistance of no more than five (5) volunteer Paralegal Certification Ambassadors, recommend onefrom each of the five (5) regions and any other willing volunteers to attendthree (3) virtual committee meetings of 1 hour each duration; with additional time for research and emails reviewing/editing a draft position statement for comment by the Board and eventual vote by the delegates. Expected total: 20 hours.
State any known legal implications: None
Have you reviewed NFPA’s Bylaws, Policy Manual and/or Procedures Manual to determine if there are any conflicts? Yes No If yes, please provide details.
There are no apparent conflicts to the proposed request for a position statement regarding the request for a position statement from NFPA on the concept of Licensed Legal Technicians and other non-attorney programs being created to bridge the gap in providing legal services across the country.
PROPOSED RESOULTION
Requesting a Position Statement from NFPA on the concept of Licensed Legal Technicians and other non-attorney programs
Whereas, it is in the best interest of NFPA to be prepared to respond to potential legislation or court rules providing for licensed legal technicians.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the NFPA Board will appoint an ad hoc committee to research the concept of a licensed legal technician or non-attorney provider program (also called legal professionals) that provides limited legal services defined by scope and other requirements such as the Washington Rule 28 LLLT Program for the purpose of creating a position statement.
FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Vice President and Director of Profession Development or the Vice President and Director of Positions and Issues and the Vice President & Director of Paralegal Certification be tasked with overseeing the ad hoc committee to draft the position statement with the assistance of no more than five (5) volunteer Paralegal Certification Ambassadors, one from each of the five (5) regions, and any other willing volunteers to attend three (3) virtual committee meetings of 1 hour each duration; with additional time for research and emails reviewing/editing a draft position statement for final approval by the NFPA Board.
FURTHER RESOLVED, that the ad hoc committee will present a detailed report, that includes model language and model requirements to be included in the position statement, directly to the NFPA Board within nine months of this resolution in order for the Board to respond and ask for any additional information from the committee prior to thevoting on the submitted position statement on this topic at the 2016 NFPA Annual Policy Meeting by the delegates.
FURTHER RESOLVED, that the position statement will be submitted to the delegates for approval at the 2016 NFPA Annual Policy Meeting by the delegates.
1 | Page
[1]
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]