Carolina Paralegal News

MILWAUKEE, WI — Attorneys who teach paralegal courses have the ability to apply for continuing legal education credit, but a vague Wisconsin Supreme Court rule has discouraged any from trying.

A petition filed with the court last July sought to clarify the issue, but the state justices on Nov. 7, 2011, dismissed the proposal prior to scheduling a public hearing. The court argued that because the Board of Bar Examiners already has the authority to grant CLE credit on a case-by-case basis, no explicit rule granting credit for ABA-approved paralegal classes is necessary, as was requested in the petition.

The problem with that logic, said attorney and co-petitioner Kathleen McDaniel, is the current rule doesn’t provide any incentive for paralegal instructors to apply for credit. Supreme Court Rule 31.05(3) specifies in part that “teaching a course in a law school approved by the American Bar Association,” is worth one hour of CLE credit for each hour of presentation.

“My reading of the rule is that I always assumed it would never be covered,” McDaniel said, “because it’s not a law school class.”

McDaniel was one of a dozen lawyers that filed the petition seeking permission to receive one hour of CLE credit for each hour of teaching a legal specialty court in an ABA-approved paralegal program.

State Supreme Court Justice Patience Roggensack said the current rule allows the BBE to evaluate applications for credit based on criteria including if the program increases the individual’s competence as a lawyer.

Part of the reason the justices denied the paralegals’ petition, she said, is because no one in the state has yet tried to get credit under the current rule.

“If the first one gets approved and they start applying,” Roggensack said, “they will know what types of things the BBE will and will not approve.”

The court unanimously dismissed the petition for a new rule, she said, because it didn’t want to open the door to a flood of other rules requests to include additional forms of non-attorney instruction.

“Attorneys get credit for teaching other lawyers,” Roggensack said. “Whether you can get CLE for instructing paralegals or a group of bankers of whatever, that should be looked at on a one-by-one basis.”

In a Nov. 1 letter to the court, Jacquelynn Rothstein, BBE executive director, said she also preferred a case-by-case review of applications to determine if the paralegal teaching qualifies for CLE credit. She could not immediately be reached for additional comment.

“That approach is far more preferable,” Rothstein said in the letter, “than having attorneys petition the court to create a new type of CLE category each time someone fails to find an approved one in the existing rules.”

Attorney Richard Opie, author of the dismissed petition, argued that paralegal instructors are not an obscure population of attorneys looking for a BBE exemption, however. There are six ABA approved paralegal programs in Wisconsin and approximately 30 attorneys teaching legal specialty courses, he said.

Opie, coordinator of the paralegal program at Lakeshore Technical College, said he was surprised the court and BBE preferred to handle the issue on a case-by-case basis. He and McDaniel said they now plan to apply for CLE credit for their paralegal teaching.

“I would have thought that amending the current rule to include us,” Opie said, “would be more efficient than having to review individual applications, but I guess we will see.”

Dolan Media Newswires News, NEWS & FEATURES CLE

By Lindsay Valek, Special to CPN

Last month I attended a continuing legal education course sponsored by the Association of Litigation Support Professionals. The seminar, entitled “Making the Most of Technology in Trial,” featured a panel of graphic designers, litigation support specialists, an attorney and a representative of the South Carolina Office of Disciplinary Counsel. Introducing myself, I discovered that nearly two-thirds of the attendees were in some form of litigation support.

That got me thinking: Could a paralegal’s perspective benefit a CLE?

South Carolina attorneys are required to complete 14 hours of approved CLE courses, two of which must be committed to legal ethics and professional responsibility. The CLE requirements were implemented in 1982 and are governed by the state Supreme Court’s Commission of Continuing Legal Education and Specialization, which is comprised of 12 members appointed by the high court and includes representatives from the judiciary and practicing attorneys from the four judicial regions.

While many states recommend legal education for legal assistants and paralegals, few and far between require the completion of credit hours. South Carolina does not require that paralegals meet any CLE quota.

By contrast, the Legal Assistants Division of the State Bar of Texas requires that paralegals obtain six hours of continuing legal education each year to maintain their voting rights and active membership within the organization. California, Indiana and Oklahoma also require their paralegals to obtain some CLE credit.

The practice of law is constantly evolving. Societal changes impact not only the laws that govern us, but the very process by which attorneys conduct business. Electronic discovery, encrypted metadata, iPhones and social networking are just a few examples of how the legal field has been touched by societal evolution. CLE courses keep attorneys and their support staff educated on the latest issues that affect their practices.

Ask any paralegal and chances are likely that his or her job responsibilities already include tracking and managing their attorneys’ CLE requirements. But just below the surface – right underneath their attorneys’ noses – lays a smorgasbord of knowledge that is quietly waiting to be unearthed. 

It is the paralegal that is called upon to design PowerPoint presentations for hearings and arbitrations. 

It is the paralegal who structures document databases or, in many firms, hard copy files containing hundreds of thousands of pieces of evidence.

A tech-savvy paralegal splices video deposition transcripts and embeds them into trial presentation software.

It is the paralegal who often lays the first eyes on the documents that will become the backbone of a case.

Paralegals navigate the courthouses, getting to know not only the docketing clerk who will let them make an emergency copy, but also the technology (or lack thereof) available.

So why aren’t paralegals teaching CLEs?

Robert Dodson, a local Columbia attorney, has been in practice 12 years and specializes in civil litigation. He said that attorneys often discount their paralegals’ ideas and perspectives.

“Lawyers are bad at managing people. That stems from the fact that we don’t get any training or education [in that area],” Dodson said. “I would love to know what a paralegal’s perspective is when getting ready for a trial or hearing or interacting with clients and potential clients. Those are probably two of the most stressful parts of my paralegals’ jobs and hearing what they say on that would be interesting.”

Without sugarcoating the subject, paralegals aren’t teaching and participating in the instruction of CLEs for a host of reasons that, in reality, lack sufficient standing.

Either those coordinating CLE programs don’t think attorneys would respond to a paralegal’s perspective or paralegals themselves aren’t showcasing how tremendously valuable their skills, insights and roles within the legal arena really are. Perhaps it is a combination of both.

In April, I wrote to the S.C. Bar’s CLE Division requesting permission to develop a CLE program taught by paralegals on trial preparation and technology use at trial. My inquiry was bolstered by a letter of support from an attorney who had held the role of opposing counsel in a trial that I had attended.

“Ms. Valek demonstrates a strong understanding of trial preparation and the use of technology in the courtroom,” he wrote. “Most often, attorneys do delegate this responsibility to paralegals and consequently they are in the best position to provide education concerning these matters. I wholeheartedly recommend that you approve Ms. Valek’s proposed CLE seminar.”

Despite follow-up letters and telephone inquires – which inevitably led directly to voicemail – I have heard nothing from the CLE Division.

It goes without saying, then, that the paralegal’s perspective is undervalued by attorneys, CLE coordinators and in many cases, paralegals themselves. 

I encourage all paralegals to showcase their talents, if not to a conference room, then to your fellow staff members. Create opportunities to educate your colleagues and bosses on those skills that you perform best.

Perhaps eventually the CLE seminar circuit will catch up to how amazing we really are. 

Editor’s note: Lindsay Valek is a paralegal and writer based in Columbia, S.C.

lindsay.valek Features, NEWS & FEATURES CLE, lindsay valek, paralegal, South Carolina Bar