Paralegal Licensing and Regulation: Part I-The ''Pros''

Efforts at regulating the paralegal profession are becoming increasingly widespread. In 2001, California adopted clear guidelines on the education, work experience, supervision, performance, and confidentiality requirements of paralegals. State legislatures, bar associations, and courts nationwide continue to adopt definitions of the terms "paralegal" and "legal assistant." Most of them reserve those titles for persons who are supervised by an attorney or other entity and qualified through education and experience to perform certain legal tasks.

And paralegals, legal assistants, and paralegal organizations are taking note. Both the National Federation of Paralegal Associations (NFPA) and the National Association of Legal Assistants (NALA) have released statements on the topic. NALA asserts that state regulation is unnecessary, but stands behind third-party education, testing, and professional improvement efforts. NFPA endorses certain regulation efforts that would allow paralegals to provide certain additional tasks to the public.

But before one may form an opinion regarding licensing, it is important to understand the terms behind it. "A license is something that gives one the right to practice a particular profession. It is usually (put in place) to make sure that whoever is performing a line of work has met the minimum qualifications for it," says Frederick T. Golder, Professor at the Massachusetts School of Law, employment attorney, and author. "Regulations are the requirements imposed on people performing a particular trade or (acting under) a particular license."

The debate over whether to implement paralegal licensing efforts is a hot-button issue among the entire profession. "There are two schools of thought on the licensing and regulation issue," says Renee Sova, Director of Alumni and Advanced Specialty Programs at the American Institute for Paralegal Studies. "One is that (licensing) will enhance the work a paralegal will be able to perform and provide access to legal services for those that can't currently afford it. Others are against licensure because they feel that the profession was created to assist attorneys, not replace them. They argue that attorneys are already licensed, and (because) paralegals work for attorneys, (there is no) need for a double layer of licensure."

Professional development, advancement, and recognition of the profession are significant reasons why paralegals lobby for licensure. "Through licensing, (the paralegal profession) may become more recognized," says Nancy Roney, legal assistant and former Co-Director of Continuing Education of the Massachusetts Paralegal Association. In addition to recognizing the value of the profession, regulating it may also keep out individuals who are not qualified for the job. "Licensing can serve a gate-keeping function, limiting the number of people who may call themselves paralegals," says Mr. Golder.

Licensure and regulation could mean more tangible benefits to paralegals as well. "It may result in pay increases and more opportunities for advancement," Ms. Roney believes. In addition to being paid more, many paralegals hope that licensure and state regulations may lead to better assignments. "Paralegals want to utilize their skills and knowledge they were trained for while attending paralegal training programs," explains Ms. Sova. "If licensure could guarantee that paralegals would obtain assignments that require high-end analytical skills, rest assured all paralegals would come together on this issue."

Furthermore, licensed paralegals could put the public at ease. "Licensing would lead to the public's trust that (paralegals) have certain qualifications," says Ms. Roney. In fact, a license is often imposed on a particular profession as an effort to protect the public from individuals not qualified to provide a certain service. "Licensing can give people a certain level of comfort," Mr. Golder says. Some paralegals also lobby for licensing in hopes that by adhering to statewide regulations, they will be allowed to provide certain additional services to the public, thereby actually reducing the high costs of legal services and elevating the profession as a whole.

For both the public and the profession itself, licensing and regulation could mean some positive results. However, some paralegals and legal assistants believe licensure across the board is unnecessary and unhelpful. Stay tuned for Part II of our series, where LawCrossing investigates the drawbacks behind paralegal licensure and regulation.

Related Post


i have a school report i need to find out if missouri has any liecening and registration requirments for paralegals if some one could please email me with these answers or sujections where on the internet i would be able to find out this information i was greatly appericate it thanks

Posted by: jessica pineda   |   Date: 10-20-2011

The contention that "Others are against licensure because they feel that the profession was created to assist attorneys, not replace them," is seriously flawed.

The term paralegal became synonymous with "independent paralegals" who put the name on the map, because of their providing self-help legal services to working people, who couldn't afford to hire a lawyer.

The public was for the most part unaware of the legal assistants and law clerks who worked for law firms. Rather, it was the self-help law movement and independent paralegals that brought the paralegal profession to the public eye and garnered their trust.

Years later, a number of organizations switched their names from legal assistant to paralegal, as evidenced in legal assistant associations; trade magazines like Legal Assistant Today, switching to Paralegal Today; the ABA Standing Committee of Legal Assistants, switching to the Standing Committee Paralegals, and so on.

The reason most lawyers are reluctant to support paralegal licensure is because they would have to lower their hourly rates, which would force them to have to compete with paralegals. That's the real reason.

Paralegals should not be licensed for the simple fact it would create another class of legal practioners. What is really needed is a healthy dose of legal competion in the marketplace, wherein consumers would be in control in deciding who they want to hire for routine legal matters.

Rather than licensing, states should adopt a model along the the lines of California, which established minimum paralegal educational guidelines, mandatory continuing legal education, and the duty of confidentialty, among other things.

Paralegals meeting such state educational requirements would then be permitted to practice law in limited areas. Access to justice could then be realized.

Lastly, regulation and licensing would drive the cost of paralegals up, which would defeat the purpose.

Posted by: C S   |   Date: 08-13-2011

Featured Testimonials

LawCrossing is more useful than any other law site out there.
Nancy M.


LawCrossing Fact #24: Many of LawCrossing’s jobs are retrieved from employer career pages, meaning the selection is superior and more accurate.

Job Title
Sep 20, 15
Legal Staff in Baden, AARGAU
In-House, Min 5 yrs required
Deal Manager Duties: Proactively liaise with relevant Sales teams to early engage ...
Sep 07, 15
Legal Staff in Anaheim, CA
In-House, Min 5 yrs required
Paralegal The candidate will provide support to Gateway One Legal Department attorne...
Sep 24, 15
Legal Staff in Seattle, WA
In-House, Min 4 yrs required
Paralegal Duties: Working with the General Counsel and Senior Counsels, will support...
Job of the Day

Employment Attorney in Honolulu, HI


Employment Counsel The candidate will be responsible for providing Company senior management with timely, effective leg...

Job Search Tip

A resume won't get you a job. But a resume will get you an interview, so sweat it a little, knowing you can always revise it if you need to.