IoP backs Law Soc’s bid to create paralegal qualification
The Lawyer reports: The Institute of Paralegals (IoP) has pledged its support for a new study commissioned by The Law Society into the provision of a qualification for paralegals.
Former senior civil servant within the Ministry of Justice Nick Smedley has been commissioned to undertake a study into whether the Law Society should develop or endorse qualifications for paralegals.
IoP’s chief executive James O’Connell said: “This a very positive step for the future of paralegals in this country. They are often undertrained and underrecognised and being recognised by such a big player as the Law Society is just the type of backing the profession needs.”
Bob Heslett, the former Law Society President who commissioned the study, said the review was particularly important because there were more paralegals in the market than ever before.
I enjoyed this comment posted below the article from The Lawyer…
Anonymous | 30-Jul-2010 12:56 pm
Does anyone know the difference between the national institute of paralegals (nips?), the licensed instutute of paralegals, the national paralegal institute and the association of national paralegals? I’m getting really confused. Do they have many members? I suppose ILEx has been around for a long while and appears to be credible, so maybe they’re the people whose view should be sought.
But then things got really interesting…. when this post appeared…
Amanda Hamilton Chief Executive, NALP | 2-Aug-2010 1:30 pm
Referring to ‘Anonymous’ (30th July 12.56pm), we would like to point out that there are no such organisations as ‘The Licensed Institute of Paralegals’, ‘The National Paralegal Institute’ or the ‘Association of National Paralegals’.
There are only two professional bodies for paralegals: The NALP (The National Association of Licensed Paralegals) is the leading body and has been established for 23 years. The other is The Institute of Paralegals (IoP) formerly known as The Paralegal Association and formed around 2004.
We would also like to point out that the IOP’s ‘national framework’ is not the first ever framework for a paralegal career. The NALP has run one since 1989. It has been the forerunner for paralegal career development and its foundation qualification, the Higher Diploma in Paralegal Studies, has been (in the recent past) nationally accredited and recognised by The National Open College Network from 1995- 2002 and has been run by Further Education Colleges up and down the country.
More importantly NALP has recently gained Awarding Body accreditation and status from the Office of the Qualifications and Examinations Regulator (OfQUAL), the watchdog for qualifications in England. Furthermore the NALP’s Post Graduate Diploma in Paralegal Practice (the PPC), is specifically designed for Law Graduates to enable them to obtain the necessary understanding of legal practice (because a Law Degree does not cover any of it), has been successfully running for ten years and the NALP Higher Diploma (procedural law content) been incorporated (as an option) in Sunderland University’s Law Degree Programme for the past six years. NALP will of course be working closely with The Law Society in connection with its proposed study and is already working with Skills For Justice in a similar vain. Those persons who have responded negatively, above, to the need for Paralegals to be qualified are either not in the profession or do not want to improve their careers. Qualifications are very necessary as the majority of Paralegals do virtually the same work as Solicitors. The ‘pen pushing office fodder’ referred to by some are not Paralegals but merely administrative clerks.
I don’t suppose I helped much when I added to the debate by asking in the comments section (not published at the time of writing by The Lawyer) if anyone is going to set up a National Institute for…
The ‘pen pushing office fodder’ referred to by some are not Paralegals but merely administrative clerks.”….
Sometimes I sit here at my desk and wonder why Law is important. I think Jack Straw had a point when he said, in his capacity as Lord Chancellor some time ago, that ‘The Law’ is not here for lawyers to make a business out of..
I have said this before but no-one is interested….. and why should they be? We have too many young lawyers because we have too many law schools and colleges pumping out young people (and some not so young) with law degrees and other qualifications. These law schools and colleges are doing just fine – for the moment. The top universities are not to blame, nor the leading LPC/BVC providers – we need good law students coming through – just not so many of them?
We have too many people with legal qualifications – from professional to paralegal – coming through. The profession can’t take them all in, so a lot of young people (and some not so young) can’t get training contracts or pupillages. Some of these people take on work as paralegals – not exactly or always a direct route to practice as a lawyer. Law firms have a tendency, I am advised by those who have done paralegal work, to be quite happy to pay less for paralegals and do not always encourage them to ‘go further’ and qualify as solicitors or read for the Bar.
Unfortunately, there are not enough jobs for all these people with legal training at the various levels… and, I suspect, it will only get worse….. I quote from the words of a former President of The Law Society…
Bob Heslett, the former Law Society President who commissioned the study, said the review was particularly important because there were more paralegals in the market than ever before.
But…. who am I… who are ‘we’ to be critical of the new era of free markets, new universities, academies, Big Society and a land dripping with honey…after we have all taken our medicine from Nanny Doubtfire and his mate, Clegg?
I do like the smell of ranks closing, restrictive practices and hypocrisy in the morning…..
Of course… as ever… I could have missed the point entirely. Your thoughts would be most welcome, as always. If I have got it wrong… I would be delighted to hear it…..
I do wonder if, as happens to some extent in the US, if once there is an oversupply of lawyers in the market there is a natural tendency to increase the size of the market. After all, our parliament is dominated by lawyers (as it is in the US) and it sometimes seems that it’s the first reaction of so many politicians, when faced with a social ill to reach for the statute book to let loose yet another law into society with heaven knows what wider effect. Not only is it virtually impossible for the man in the street to track all this stuff (and, as we know, ignorance of all this stuff is no defense), but many such laws difficult to enforce,
So that’s what lawyers do – make yet more laws. It may keep some of the these types in work. That’s without all the potential for the civil law; maybe we can become as litigious as our American cousins. We have no win, no fee legislation and a general drive towards the blame culture. Also some of the more aggressive HR departments are going to create lots of work in tribunals (I see that rather a lot). Sadly for lawyers we seem to have rather run down the public inquiry industry as of the past couple of years, but hardly the say goes by without some lawyer backing a plea for a new one into some matter or other best dealt with by health and safety. Then there are all the demands for all and sundry involved with such inquiries to be legally represented, ably advertised by yet more lawyers.
Alternatively, many law graduates might just join all the other graduates who find themselves with a qualification of little market value from some mediocre educational institution further burdened with student debt.
ummm, yeah.
We don’t have “suck it and see” doctors, yet we want a “free market” approach to the provision of legal services.
And who pays for this “free market”? Why we all do – when government wakes up and realises immigrants are having the piss taken out of them – they set up OSIC. Now they want to do the same for “will writers”, “paralegals” etc.
Here’s an idea – have laws, as they do in the US, where it is a criminal offence to practice law without a Bar licence. Full stop.
Solicitors, Barristers, ILEXs, and Licensed Conveyancers are enough, please.
There is a reason why lawyers in this country used to be required to get qualified before holding themselves out – its because the consequences of fucking up are monumental and that it’s in all our interest that people allowed to exercise this power on behalf of and over peoples’ lives are vetted to a high standard – not just on the basis they can fill out a form.
Labour were obsessed with “opening the professions” – and creating a new league of para-professionals for a “free market”. Somewhat laughable when there are a bazillion law/BVC/LPC graduates who cannot find training contracts and pupillage.
[…] Law Review: I do like the smell of ranks closing, restrictive practices and hypocrisy in the morning… […]
There are similar issues in New Zealand, where I practise as a barrister sole but until recently also employing some paralegals, law clerks, and assistant barristers. The legislation was freed up in 2008, to allow non-lawyers to provide legal advice (except as to the ‘direction and management’ of proceedings, unless that advice is given on behalf of an incorporated law practice), and to provide for licensed conveyancers.
It depends on what work you are expecting the paralegals to do, and whether it is being done under the auspices of a lawyer, and what training and supervision are provided.
If the practice is specialising in one area of law (eg family law – parenting and domestic violence), in which the facts and psychology are the complicated part rather than the law itself, a non-lawyer with significant relevant counselling, parenting-education, child-protection and family-violence training and experience is likely to be of more use to the client than an A grade law graduate who knows nothing of those areas except from the statutes and case law.
Requiring that non-lawyer to be trained in conveyancing, trusts, wills, etc (as is likely to be required in paralegal qualifications, at least in New Zealand and I suspect also elsewhere) is pointless. It would be better to have one paralegal qualification that specifically supports family-law practice, and another that specifically supports conveyancing practice, or civil litigation, etc etc. One or more such specialist paralegal qualifications could also be available to new lawyers, to provide the contextual and practical information they need in order most effectively to help clients.
At the same time, effective training for lawyers in how to train and supervise junior lawyers and non-lawyers may perhaps be overdue?
To my mind, the loveliest part of the provision of legal education is that it offers the acquisition a skill, several skills, as it happens; skills that are transferable, because for the time being at least, nothing any law student learns at university (reading law) or law school vaguely resembles the pragmatic aspects of real life practice, so, in essence those core skills that we do learn can be used elsewhere.
Maybe the trick might be to offer alternative career paths to people at law school? Open up the doors to other professions, invite them in to our BVC and LPC providers’ institutions and let them pick off the students who either don’t want to practice conventional law or simply didn’t manage to draw enough blood to get the one available pupillage 🙂
For me at least, providing choices is very important, but it’s perhaps how we make those choices work for us that makes all the difference?
unfortunately, paralegals are the pile em high and sell em cheap “cost-cutting” solution for the CPS and the LSC.
As a result, we have non-qualified “prosecutors” who couldn’t prosecute Satan and legal aid contracts that favour the McDonald’s approach to legal services – where easy cases are open and quickly shut – and everyone else can get stuffed.
With these models, “training” is the 3 year pqe acting a overseer and chief burger flipper to a sweat-shop floor of crap law.
If what Kris says is correct, then someone is missing out on the true potential of paraprofessionals.
Read David Maister’s books, especially ‘True Professionalism’ and ‘Managing the Professional Service Firm’.
Maister points out that most law practices under-delegate, and should be making more use of juniors and para-professionals. But he emphasises the need to tailor this to the type of practice, and for full training and supervision, and for strong methodologies, systems, templates and processes. Straight-forward cases should be dealt with by juniors or paraprofessionals who are competent and properly trained and supervised – not only because their time is cheaper, but because they will put more effort in because it is challenging for them while boring for a senior practitioner.
Like Kris, Maister uses the analogy of burgers: Maister’s view is that if your business (practice) specialises in selling burgers, then you need to recruit people whose passion is burgers, not people who are passing through on their way to being a cordon bleu chef.
Complex or rare cases need high expertise. Many (maybe most) cases do not. They are the ones that could and should be done by juniors and paralegals who are passionate about the specific type of case, who are specifically trained for that type of case, and who have the expertise and backing to deal with those cases effectively.
Using a medical metaphor, Maister distinguishes between Brain Surgery practice, Psychotherapy practice, Nursing practice, and Pharmacy practice. Nursing and Pharmacy practices need different skills and practice structures, compared to Brain Surgeons. The bulk of legal-aid work would be Nursing and Pharmacy practice and is ill-suited to Brain Surgeons; but the system should also refer cases to Brain Surgeons where appropriate.
Quality is not commensurate with seniority.