var googletag = googletag || {}; googletag.cmd = googletag.cmd || []; googletag.cmd.push(function() { googletag.pubads().disableInitialLoad(); });
device = device.default;
//this function refreshes [adhesion] ad slot every 60 second and makes prebid bid on it every 60 seconds // Set timer to refresh slot every 60 seconds function setIntervalMobile() { if (!device.mobile()) return if (adhesion) setInterval(function(){ googletag.pubads().refresh([adhesion]); }, 60000); } if(device.desktop()) { googletag.cmd.push(function() { leaderboard_top = googletag.defineSlot('/22018898626/LC_Article_detail_page', [468, 60], 'div-gpt-ad-1591620860846-0').setTargeting('pos', ['1']).setTargeting('div_id', ['leaderboard_top']).addService(googletag.pubads()); googletag.pubads().collapseEmptyDivs(); googletag.enableServices(); }); } else if(device.tablet()) { googletag.cmd.push(function() { leaderboard_top = googletag.defineSlot('/22018898626/LC_Article_detail_page', [320, 50], 'div-gpt-ad-1591620860846-0').setTargeting('pos', ['1']).setTargeting('div_id', ['leaderboard_top']).addService(googletag.pubads()); googletag.pubads().collapseEmptyDivs(); googletag.enableServices(); }); } else if(device.mobile()) { googletag.cmd.push(function() { leaderboard_top = googletag.defineSlot('/22018898626/LC_Article_detail_page', [320, 50], 'div-gpt-ad-1591620860846-0').setTargeting('pos', ['1']).setTargeting('div_id', ['leaderboard_top']).addService(googletag.pubads()); googletag.pubads().collapseEmptyDivs(); googletag.enableServices(); }); } googletag.cmd.push(function() { // Enable lazy loading with... googletag.pubads().enableLazyLoad({ // Fetch slots within 5 viewports. // fetchMarginPercent: 500, fetchMarginPercent: 100, // Render slots within 2 viewports. // renderMarginPercent: 200, renderMarginPercent: 100, // Double the above values on mobile, where viewports are smaller // and users tend to scroll faster. mobileScaling: 2.0 }); });
×

The Washington Supreme Court Order 25700-A-1005 and Paralegal Practice

( 14 votes, average: 4.7 out of 5)
What do you think about this article? Rate it using the stars above and let us know what you think in the comments below.
In June 2012, the Washington Supreme Court adopted a rule, APR-28, establishing a framework for the licensing and regulation of non-attorneys to engage in discrete activities that currently fall with the definition of the “practice of law.” GR 24 defines practice of law, while GR 25 is the Supreme Court rule that establishes the practice of a Law Board.
 
Washington Supreme Court adopts rule APR-28

While by itself, the rule adopted by the Washington Supreme Court does not authorize any one to practice law, it establishes the regulatory framework for the consideration of proposals to allow non-attorneys to practice. Specifically, the motion and the resultant order is targeted at allowing paralegals to openly and legally handle work that comes within the periphery of minor legal work and confined to help in documentation and related advise.


However, even more than the order allowing the adoption of such a rule that paves the way for non-attorneys to tread into traditional though insignificant regions of the ‘practice of law, the dissent to the order is mentionable. It is mentionable not only because it sums up the prejudices of those who are in the practice of law as an honored profession and against its ‘dilution, but it is mentionable because it raises significant questions that should be addressed by the system before professing to offer to paralegals, what is first-aid as cure.

The dissent is also mentionable because, as admitted by the dissenting judge, “During my years on the Washington Supreme Court, I have not once authored a dissent to an administrative order of this court. I depart from that custom today because I have very strong feelings that our courts decision to adopt the new Admission to Practice Rule, APR 28, is ill-considered, incorrect, and most of all extremely unfair to the members of the Washington State Bar Association.

But before you jump to any conclusion about biased mumbo-jumbo, lets find out what the dissenting judge says in his dissent succinctly:
 
  • “I am not suggesting that the legal needs of all persons in this state are currently being met”
  • “We in the judiciary and the legal profession have an obligation to look for appropriate ways to expand the availability of legal assistance to the public”
  • “My opposition to the rule is based on the fact this rule and its attendant regulations impose an obligation on the members of the WSBA to underwrite the considerable cost of establishing and maintaining what can only be characterized as a mini bar association within the present WSBA”
  • “I do not believe that we possess the authority to tax the lawyers of this state to pay “all of the expenses reasonably and necessarily incurred” by the Non-Lawyer Practice Commission, a body which comes into being pursuant to the rules and regulations”
  • “Either way you look at it, this court is imposing a tax on lawyers”
  • “Although this court was earlier led to believe that initially there would be certification of legal technicians only in family law matters, the rule and regulations this court has approved provide the Practice of Law Board with unbridled discretion to recommend to the Supreme Court the areas, the full range of practice areas encompassed by the GR 24 definition of the practice of law, in which legal technicians can practice.”
  • “I wish to observe that an impartial observer might wonder why the Supreme Court does not assume responsibility for funding implementation of APR 28. After all, the fact that the legal needs of the public are not being met is a problem that affects the entire community, not just a segment of our states population like its attorneys at law.”
  • “Is it fair or equitable for this court to eschew assuming financial responsibility for the program I this time of economic distress, and instead impose the obligation on all of the states lawyers, many of whom are feeling adverse affects of the current downturn of the economy? I say no.”

What the dissenting judge points out is extremely important, because, if the costs of the APR-28 related activities were to be borne by the members of the Washington State Bar, then it would only amount to lip service to public needs. Effect and results of such activities would remain controlled by those who would be funding such activities, and in this case, only such funders have been chosen, to whom providing the desired funding would amount to hurting their own selves.

However, as the dissenting judge points out, it would have been fair if the Supreme Court itself bore the costs of the program, instead of charging the bar association with it. As the dissent mentions, “Such a question would not be farfetched because in a number of states the expense associated with the admission and disciplining of lawyers is subsumed within the budget of the highest court in those states.”


About Harrison Barnes
Harrison Barnes is the founder of LawCrossing and an internationally recognized expert in attorney search and placement. Harrison is extremely committed to and passionate about the profession of legal placement. Harrison’s writings about attorney careers and placement attract millions of reads each year. LawCrossing has been ranked on the Inc. 500 twice. For more information, please visit Harrison Barnes’ bio.

About LawCrossing
LawCrossing has received tens of thousands of attorneys jobs and has been the leading legal job board in the United States for almost two decades. LawCrossing helps attorneys dramatically improve their careers by locating every legal job opening in the market. Unlike other job sites, LawCrossing consolidates every job in the legal market and posts jobs regardless of whether or not an employer is paying. LawCrossing takes your legal career seriously and understands the legal profession. For more information, please visit www.LawCrossing.com.


Featured Testimonials

I liked-the 'My hotlist' feature on LawCrossing. It was the best of the abundant of features on the site.
Leigh


Facts

LawCrossing Fact #33: LawCrossing’s articles have features that let readers comment on them, allowing site users to share their opinions and interact with each other.

 

Harrison Barnes does a weekly free webinar with live Q&A for attorneys and law students each Wednesday at 10:00 am PST. You can attend anonymously and ask questions about your career, this article, or any other legal career-related topics. You can sign up for the weekly webinar here: Register on Zoom

Harrison also does a weekly free webinar with live Q&A for law firms, companies, and others who hire attorneys each Wednesday at 10:00 am PST. You can sign up for the weekly webinar here: Register on Zoom

You can browse a list of past webinars here: Webinar Replays

You can also listen to Harrison Barnes Podcasts here: Attorney Career Advice Podcasts

You can also read Harrison Barnes' articles and books here: Harrison's Perspectives


Harrison Barnes is the legal profession's mentor and may be the only person in your legal career who will tell you why you are not reaching your full potential and what you really need to do to grow as an attorney--regardless of how much it hurts. If you prefer truth to stagnation, growth to comfort, and actionable ideas instead of fluffy concepts, you and Harrison will get along just fine. If, however, you want to stay where you are, talk about your past successes, and feel comfortable, Harrison is not for you.

Truly great mentors are like parents, doctors, therapists, spiritual figures, and others because in order to help you they need to expose you to pain and expose your weaknesses. But suppose you act on the advice and pain created by a mentor. In that case, you will become better: a better attorney, better employees, a better boss, know where you are going, and appreciate where you have been--you will hopefully also become a happier and better person. As you learn from Harrison, he hopes he will become your mentor.

To read more career and life advice articles visit Harrison's personal blog.

Let's Do It!
Email:

Only LawCrossing consolidates every job it can find in the legal industry and puts all of the job listings it locates in one place.

  • We have more than 25 times as many legal jobs as any other job board.
  • We list jobs you will not find elsewhere that are hidden in small regional publications and employer websites.
  • We collect jobs from more than 250,000 websites and post them on our site.
  • Increase your chances of being seen! Employers on public job boards get flooded with applications. Our private job boards ensure that only members can apply to our job postings.
About Harrison Barnes

Harrison is the founder of BCG Attorney Search and several companies in the legal employment space that collectively gets thousands of attorneys jobs each year. Harrison is widely considered the most successful recruiter in the United States and personally places multiple attorneys most weeks. His articles on legal search and placement are read by attorneys, law students and others millions of times per year.

Success Stories

I was able to obtain my new job through LawCrossing. I love your service! Hopefully, I won't need your help for a while, but if I do, I'll certainly sign up again. I have already told others about your great site.
  • Theresa D. Colorado

Everyone Loves LawCrossing

I came back to LawCrossing to search through the listings in my new job search because I had been able to get my last 2 jobs through using the site. I love the search capacity and filters. This is a very valuable service.
  • Jennifer Guidea Bloomfield, NJ
+ Read More Success Stories
  • All we do is research jobs
  • Our team of researchers, programmers, and analysts find you jobs from over 50,000 career pages and other sources
  • Our members get more interviews and jobs than people who use "public job boards"