The Estrin Report

Air Force Identifies Paralegal Field Going Back As Far as 1955

This is one of those trivia facts that you're not too sure what to do with but makes a difference in how you might perceive the paralegal field.

Most schools, articles, books, tall tales, and verbal chronologies of the paralegal field identify the field as starting in or around 1978 or so.  In fact, the first paralegal program at UCLA started about then.

However, in a solicitation for paralegal recruits, the Air Force states that in  1955, paralegals were recognized as their own career field and awarded their own Air Force specialty code. In 1979, the Air Force approved a Community College of the Air Force Associate Degree program.

The reason this impacts what we know about the field, is that we can no longer claim the field is all that new.  Identifying the position in 1955 makes this field over 50 years old and hardly the new field, "only 30 years old" as most of us seem to believe. Does that mean we should be further along in development? Does it mean that law firms were even slower then we thought to embrace the concept?  Does it mean that the public should be even more aware of proper utilization of paralegals?

On another note, if you're looking for a new employer, this might be attractive to you. Air Force paralegals assist attorneys in providing legal support to commanders, first sergeants and other key personnel on a wide range of legal issues such as international and operational law, civil law, military justice and claims.

In 2003, the paralegal apprentice course opened its doors to non-prior military personnel. New trainees are now given the opportunity to volunteer at basic military training. As part of the application process, new trainees are required to write a biography and be interviewed. The career field is highly competitive and only some of the best are selected.

The paralegal career field is all volunteer, consisting of about 1,440 enlisted Airmen, and is open to military personnel of all AFSCs. To be considered for selection, applicants must be able to type 25 words per minute, have a minimum general aptitude score of 51 on the Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery examination and have no convictions by courts-martial, Article 15s or civilian court convictions. Minor traffic violations and similar infractions are not considered civilian court convictions. Reserve opportunities as an individual mobilization augmentee are also available.  For more information, call Master Sgt. Sandra Pfeffer at Edwards Air Force Base at: 277-4310.

 

   

 

The Case of the Pink Poodle

The Chicago Tribune reported today that there is an unprecedented rise in attorneys practicing animal law.

Once an area thought to be only for attorneys with either a heart or frankly, nothing else to do, The Tribune notes that "92 of the 196 ABA approved law schools in the country now offer courses on animal law, up from the nine that offered classes in 2000." Moreover, some top law schools, like Duke, Harvard, Stanford, Columbia and Northwestern, found that the price is right for building up their animal law program after each received $1 million from a foundation set up by Bob Barker.

Today's Law.com blog, Legal Blog Watch Alert, says that unfortunately, sometimes the appeal of an animal law case can bring out the beast in lawyers. Susan Cartier Liebel writes here about a case involving a Denver salon owner who was fined $1,000 by an animal control officer because she dyed her poodle pink, the official color to promote awareness of breast cancer.

Though the owner used organic beet juice which did not harm the poodle, she apparently violated a statute that prohibits owners from dying their pets.  Recognizing the public appeal of the case, two young lawyers agreed to represent the owner pro bono and asked another law firm to come on board to help with the PR aspects of the case. The firm declined -- and the young lawyers soon discovered why: the firm had poached the case of the pink pooch, arranging to represent the salon owner themselves!

I am frequently asked by paralegals what the newest areas of law are; where can you go to find jobs that appeal more to your personal interests and passions.  Use your imagination here, folks! Anytime you find a practice specialty heating up, you're bound to find lawyers who need paralegals in that specialty.  So, for those of you looking to get out of a job that's routine and repetitious, consider following this yellow brick road.  You might be pleasantly surprised.

What Gives Paralegals a Bad Rap- Lawyer Gets Suspended for Trusting Too Much - Again

This just sent chills down my spine.  Made my hair on my neck stand up.  Whatever the cliche, I had it.

The Maryland Daily Record reported that longtime lawyer Charles Jay Zuckerman said he has had it with private practice after a unanimous Court of Appeals on Monday suspended him a second time for mismanaging his client trust account, from which two successive paralegals stole more than $300,000.

Zuckerman failed again to oversee a second paralegal, who wrote checks payable to clients but endorsed by her husband. The paralegal,  Rhonda L. Elkins, pleaded guilty in February 2007 to stealing $170,000 from Zuckerman’s trust account between 2003 and 2005.  The first paralegal took $144,000.

Zuckerman got wind of the scheme in January 2006, when he learned Elkins had taken out a credit card in his name. Elkins was fired when she told Zuckerman she dipped into the trust account. Elkins was sentenced to five years in prison with all but one year suspended.

Zuckerman hired Elkins to clean up the financial mess left by Shannon Becker, her predecessor. Instead, she made checks out to friends and falsified the records.

“In the instant case, respondent [Zuckerman] delegated to Elkins the task of dealing with the consequences of the original theft in addition to management of the day to day operations of respondent’s trust account,” retired Judge Dale R. Cathell wrote for the court. “Again … he failed to correct his funds disbursement system, which allowed Elkins to steal in the same manner that the previous employee had.”

Zuckerman closed his practice in January 2007 and paid back clients. He served as an assistant attorney general in Baltimore City before going into private practice about 25 years ago.

“I’ve never taken a nickel from anybody,” Zuckerman said, adding that the two grievance proceedings were emotionally draining. “I was so stressed out I couldn’t even sleep at night.”

The court said Zuckerman’s poor hiring choices were just part of a general, repeated mismanagement of the client trust account.

Zuckerman did not notice the theft by Becker, the first paralegal, until an anonymous caller tipped him off. Becker pleaded guilty and received a 10-year sentence with all but three years suspended and was ordered to pay restitution.

In its Monday suspension order, the Court of Appeals said it considered several mitigating factors, including Zuckerman’s “own remedial measures to rectify the situation”.

The court’s action follows Judge John N. Prevas’ conclusion by clear and convincing evidence that Zuckerman violated rules of professional conduct governing competence, diligence, safekeeping property, overseeing non-lawyer assistants and misconduct.

While it is so rare that paralegals are out-and-out criminals, it's interesting that Zuckerman would consecutively hire two dishonest paralegals.  Is this akin to men and women who consistently end up attracting the "wrong" mate?  Is there a radar that zeroes in on a certain type of person?  How is it, that in all the law firms in all the states in all the world, these two paralegals walk into Zuckermans?

 

Five Dumb Office Practices

It took forever for law firms to get on the bandwagon to utilize computers back in the day when all of CorporateAmerica was pushing ahead into the world of high-tech.  Law firms reluctantly followed suit [sic] when three things happened:

1. Clients pushbacked and protested loudly that law firms were still on a manual system and doing things the "old-fashioned" way;
2. Lawyers got over the stigma that "typing" meant they were doing secretarial work;
3. Administrators and lawyers alike realized computerization did not mean the firm was going to lose billable time.  In fact, it probably meant they would be able to bill even more fees to the client.

In a Texas Lawyer article written by an anonymous secretary, five dumb office practices seem to linger in the law firm despite LegalAmerica bringing up the rear in the headlong plunge into the 20th Century:

1.  The e-mail tree nightmare:  Archiving, printing, filing into the physical file and entering e-mails into the electronic database can be an ominous task.  In one case, Ms. Anonymous has more than 700 e-mails waiting to be entered in addition to more than 3,000 e-mails already processed over the case's three-year life.

2.  Correspondence deja vu. A letter is received via fax, entered into the database and a paper copy filed. Three days later, a second copy of the same letter is received. But a good legal secretary never assumes two documents are identical just because they appear so at first glance. It takes a careful comparison to be sure.

If only we could have back all the time spent analyzing incoming mail to make sure it is, indeed, something already received by e-mail, fax or both. This doesn't even count the time spent sending the firm's lawyers' correspondence by two or three different means.

There was a time when new communication technologies remained untested and a little suspect, but that time is long past. If anything, e-mails and faxes are more reliable than physical mail.

3.   E-file, then refile. Opposing counsel e-files a lengthy brief and appendix with the court. Instantly, you receive an e-mail containing a link to the filed document, and print the file-marked copy. But three days later, a 6-inch stack of paper arrives in the mail from opposing counsel -- the same brief and appendix, not file-marked. It's trash that can't be thrown away. Somehow, it has to be to shoehorned it into your bulging file cabinets and sit there forever.

4.   The $2,000 typewriter. You ask your secretary to revise and prepare for filing a Microsoft Word document someone else created. Upon opening it, she finds a hodgepodge of hard returns, tabs, page breaks, manual numbering and direct formatting. She feverishly reworks the document, because she understand the pitfalls of treating Word like a typewriter, and has seen the embarrassment that can result. Then, she prays the original typist doesn't work on the document again before it's safely filed with the court.

Firms must acknowledge the time and money wasted by not providing adequate training to everyone who creates documents. It's time to stop this hemorrhaging of profits and make good word processing practices mandatory for all personnel.

5.  The paper chase. Your secretary sends a lengthy document to the printer she shares with eight other people. The phone rings, and a lawyer needs something, and she forgets her print job. An hour later, she checks the printer and her document has vanished. After a fruitless search of the piles of unclaimed print jobs littering the table, she gives up and sends her job again. This time, she rushes to the printer to claim her pages before they can disappear, and finds them mysteriously reordered. The only way she can ensure they're in the correct sequence is by printing them a third time.

When will the bean counters realize shared printers are more costly, not less? Aside from the reams of wasted paper, the gallons of toner and the needless wear on printer components, there are the hours staff and lawyers spend printing everything multiple times and sifting through stacks of unclaimed pages.

One foot in the current century is not enough. Firms must drag that second foot over the technology threshold and enter the Information Age fully and finally. Anyone with suggestions on how to effect that change can find Ms. Anonymous easily: "I'll be at my desk, printing e-mails, " she says. Is there any court that offers e-filing and still requires service of paper copies on e-filing registrants? Ms. Anonymous' words are harsh: "Lawyers who persist in this practice should have their computers confiscated."

No wonder there's an extreme shortage of legal secretaries.....Who wants to deal with this kind of stuff?

   

15 Minutes of Podcast Fame

Yesterday, Tita Brewster, President of the National Association of Legal Assistants and I were invited to speak on the topic of paralegals for the Podcast show, Lawyer2Lawyer.  This was the first time I've participated in this type of show.  (Yes, I've done radio & TV, video, newspaper, magazine articles but nothing so today.)

What an interesting experience!  We are now seriously looking into doing a Paralegal2Paralegal show about important topics of high interest to paralegals:  the current job market; trends; technology; cases affecting paralegals; human interest stories; profiles of courageous paralegals; paralegals working abroad; new or alternative careers; tips & techniques; and much more.

We would appreciate some feedback regarding your interests and whether Podcasting has caught on the paralegal and litigation support community.  In the meantime, here's the info on the show we were on:

Paralegals: The Backbone of the Law Practice

The work of a paralegal is never done. Although paralegals cannot offer legal advice to clients like attorneys, they are considered the backbone of the law practice. Join Law.com bloggers and co-hosts, J. Craig Williams and Robert Ambrogi as they explore the important role of a paralegal.  Lawyer2Lawyer welcomes Tita A. Brewster, Current President of the National Association of Legal Assistants (NALA) and Chere Estrin, CEO of Estrin LegalEd, to discuss a paralegal’s importance to a firm, the hurdles paralegals face, the Richlin Security Service Co v. Chertoff case and the growth of this legal profession.

Show URL:
http://www.legaltalknetwork.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=253

MP3:
http://websrvr82il.audiovideoweb.com/ny60web16519/LTN/C2C/C2C_031108_Paralegals.mp3

Windows Media Player:
mms://win40nj.audiovideoweb.com/avwebdsnjwin4287/LTN/C2C/C2C_031108_Paralegals.wma

Oh, Hollywood, Oh Hollywood.....

A new show on Fox TV starring Julianna Margulies is one of the few shows prominently featuring legal assistants as part of the legal team.  The show, Canterbury's Law, has been sent to reviewers for prescreening. 

Described as a "dark legal drama", the show stars Margulies as a convincing lawyer whose only true solace is her work. (I'm sure this doesn't sound like anyone we know.) Still, she lives under a black cloud that threatens to burst at any moment and overwhelm the show. Beneath that cloud, though, lives a cutting-edge character who blends a rough-and-tumble style outside the courtroom with a polished but assertive femininity once the trial begins.

Finally, shows are seeing the light and adding paralegals as part of the firm's regular cast.  I remember years (and years) ago attending a Los Angeles Paralegal Association seminar where the technical advisor for the show, L.A. Law was a keynote speaker.  When asked from someone in the audience why the show had no paralegals, he responded, "Because they have no love life."  Well, that much was true for me at the time.  However, I never forgot how the public must have perceived the life of a paralegal:  dull, drab and drudgery.

Fast forward to,ok, years (and many gray hairs) later where paralegals are not only part of the TV ensemble but we have the Hollywood Reporter describing the paralegal team as "Others in the Canterbury office are legal assistants Chester Grant (Keith Robinson), a straight arrow, and spunky Molly McConnell (Trieste Kelly Dunn)".

Ahhhh, Hollywood.  You do me proud.

U.S. Supreme Court to Hear Paralegal Fees Case

Paralegal fees are once again up for discussion in the U.S. Supreme Court with the Court's Nov. 12 decision to hear the Richlin v. Chertoff case.  This is an important case for law firms and paralegals in promoting the further utilization of paralegals.

The issue before the Supreme Court in the Richlin case is pretty straightforward:  Under the Equal Access to Justice Act, can a prevailing party be awarded fees for paralegal services at the market rate for such services or should such reimbursement be limited to the actual cost incurred by the attorney?

After prevailing on the merits, Richlin sought an award of attorneys fees and other expenses under the EAJA for time spent over nearly nine years by its lawyers and paralegals. The Board found that the government's position on the merits was not "substantially justified" and awarded Richlin about $50,000 for work done by its lawyers.

The Board did not, however, award Richlin fees at the $50 to $95 per hour market rates for paralegals charged to Richlin over the course of the proceedings.  The Board searched the Internet for paralegal salary information and decided to award Richlin $35 per hour as a reasonable cost to the law firm awarding approximately $10,600 for about 300 hours of compensable paralegal time.

This practice discourages law firms from utilizing paralegals thus additionally hampering clients to receive lower cost legal fees.  What law firm wants to take a loss in profits? What incentive does the law firm have in utilizing paralegals if it cannot push this profit center towards profit? For those Negative Nancys who claim that the increased use of paralegals might result in the less efficient performance of legal services, remember: the attorney is ultimately responsible for the performance of the paralegal.  Therfore, there is no incentive to delegate work to a paralegal that is beyond the paralegal's capability or to the extent that it would be inefficient.

Oral arguments in Richlin are set fro March 19th with a decision expected by the end of June.

Where Is That Ethics Class When Ya Need It?

Here's a twist:  While many paralegals aggressively seek to expand their assignments, a New York lawyer gets disbarred for overusing his paralegals and running afoul of ethics violations.

According to The New York Law Journal, real estate lawyer Keith G. Rubenstein, eager to bolster his shaky finances, signed an unusual arrangement to serve as a front for a Queens personal injury practice owned by a non-lawyer entrepreneur who made his fortune in taxicab medallions.

The deal, which netted Rubenstein a mere $21,000, resulted in his disbarment. (Don't get out those violins just yet. Last year, he outbid Madonna on a $35 million Upper East Side townhouse).  He owes his fortune to his current job as principal of Somerset Partners, an investment firm that bought a Park Ave. office building for $509 million, a record price on a per-square-foot basis.

In May 2002, Rubenstein agreed to practice personal injury law as an employee of a Long Island City-based company owned by Mr. Garber called Gem & R Management Corp.

Under this agreement, Rubenstein served as attorney of record on scores of personal injury cases that were in actuality handled almost entirely by paralegals employed by Gem & R. The agreement gave Gem & R the right to accept or reject clients for Rubenstein, as well as establish fees. The client files would also be owned by Gem & R. For his part, Rubenstein received 10% of the fees.

Rubenstein testified that court documents were often filed without his review and that Gem & R paralegals generally dealt with clients and insurance companies. Because of the arrangement, Mr. Rubenstein said it was possible he was the attorney of record on personal injury cases of which he was unaware.  Apparently, the paralegals handled simply everything.

While the attorney is ultimately responsible for ethics violations, why didn't the paralegals know that they too were in violation?  Did they take classes?  Did they think that a code of ethics did not apply?  Were they caught up in a false sense of empowerment?  Were they afraid if they didn't participate, they would lose their jobs?  Or worse, did they simply not know that they could not sign pleadings, practice law or set fees?

Who's watching the pot?