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 th
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 th