Posted: October 10, 2017
Utah Court Rules – Published for Comment
The Supreme Court and Judicial Council invite comments about amending these rules. To view the proposed amendment, click on the rule number.
To submit a comment or view the comments of others, click on “Continue Reading.” To submit a comment, scroll down to the “Leave a Reply” section, and type your comment in the “Comment” field. Type your name and email address in the designated fields and click “Post Comment.”
Comments cannot be acknowledged, but all will be considered. Comments are saved to a buffer for review before publication.
Posted: October 10, 2017
In May 2015, the Utah Supreme Court formed its Task Force to Examine Limited Legal
Licensing to study the serious and growing problem of average citizens needing legal
assistance but being unable to afford them.
This comment strike me as odd. How will the LLT provide ‘affordable’ costs. Will the fees be regulated? Right now there is fierce competition for attorneys in family law – often reducing fees to $50-$75 (under another bar supported initiative), with clients that still will not pay. OCAP, Tuesday Night Bar, etc. are available as well. This inititiative undercuts the quality and value of a ‘bar’ licensed attorney. As many other issues come forth in divorce (probate issues, estate planning, taxes, businesses involved, criminal cases, etc.) the LLT is not qualified to give legal advice on how these issues may affect a case.
I’ve worked with paralegals who are more knowledgeable than many attorneys. I’m pleased to see these rules and only wished they went farther. Allowing paralegals to also handle immigration and bankruptcy cases would make sense. They already do most of the leg work in these areas but their supervising attorneys get the big fees to the detriment of paralegals and the public.
Who trained the paralegal? There are many more questions and advice to give clients when in immigration and bk cases where crimes, large windfalls to come, estate planning, divorce, come in to play. Paraglegals are not trained, or received education, or will be tested in these areas that are often part of a client case. To say the supervising attorney gets the ‘big fees to the detriment of the paralegals and public’ is ridiculous. BK usually does not pay out a ‘big fee’, neither will immigration in most circumstances. There is great liability (malpractice) considerations with both. The ‘big fee’ pays the paralegal salary and overhead. There may be certain paralegals that know more than ‘many attorneys’, however, that is not the norm. There are many clients that are more knowledgeable than all attorneys and the court (just ask them.) This idea will not solve the backed up court system, and will create further costs for clients that assume the paralegal can represent before the court, when they can not. I still am waiting for the flood of clients that will pay me $20/hour and pay consistently on their bill. Utah has a populace of ‘entitled persons’ that feel entitled to rip off the attorney and the system if they don’t get their way for the amount they ‘feel’ justified. BTW the BK code should change to not allow attorney fees in domestic matters to be discharged.
RE: Rule 15-703, Qualifications for Licensure as a Licensed Paralegal Practitioner.
Many paralegals who have been in the profession for a substantial amount of time obtained an Associates Degree from a college and at a much later date completed a paralegal course through another institution; myself I obtained certification through an American Bar Association Approved Course of Study many, many years ago. The qualifications seem to exclude this or similar type of education.
Regardless of intent, this looks like it would be a substitute for attorneys in these areas of law. I am unaware of any situation where there is a lack of attorneys willing to do work. The problem usually seems to be a lack of clients willing to pay for the work. Presumably, the benefit of this change is to make it cheaper for the client. A business product or service is only made cheaper by cheapening the cost of doing business of cheapening the goods or services. Here, it looks like the proposal would eliminate the legal training necessary to lower the cost of goods. That does not seem like a benefit to the client in the long run. How else would the service be made cheaper to the client? Less overhead in insurance, licensing, CLE requirements…? If any of these costs are not justified, why are they applied to attorneys? Any of these overhead costs could also be reduced for attorneys to lower the cost of the legal services. The change seems to place attorneys at a large economic disadvantage to serve clients in these areas of law. So, it looks like it would be a substitute, not a complement in these areas.
Several of the listed services (representation in mediation, advice about anticipated court proceedings, preparing settlement agreements, advice about rights and court orders) go far beyond what typical paralegal roles are and draw heavily on the expertise gained through law school and practice in an area of law. Competent representation in these aspects needs a broader legal training. Limited representation on forms might be appropriate for a licensed paralegal.