State Bar of Wisconsin

Standards-Quality Subcommittee
Meeting Minutes
May 27, 1997

Chair Attorney Pam Barker called the meeting to order at approximately 2:30 p.m. Members attending were Christine Quimet-Durow, John Goudie and Attorney John Decker. Staff liaison Linda Barth was also in attendance.

At the beginning of the meeting, Ms. Quimet-Durow brought to the subcommittee's attention a newspaper advertisement stating that a paralegal would perform legal tasks. Ms. Barth was directed to bring this advertisement to the attention of the State Bar's Consumer Protection Committee. (Since that time, Ms. Barth has brought the advertisement to the Committee's attention.)

The committee unanimously approved the minutes of March 11 after amending the statute sections cited from SCR 20 to SCR 40.

As directed at the last meeting, Ms. Barth investigated the rules used by BAPR to suspend or revoke the license of an attorney convicted of a criminal penalty. She explained that BAPR makes their decisions on a case by case basis and has not written guidelines.

Attorney Barker described the procedures BAPR uses for determining good moral character and the group agreed that paralegal standards for good moral character should parallel the rules in the SCR governing attorneys. The group also noted that a disbarred attorney cannot practice as a paralegal.

The group summarized the minimum requirements the subcommittee had reached thus far:

• Good moral character should parallel the SCR governing attorneys.
• Paralegals should have to make full disclosure as in SCR 22.29.
• Requirements should parallel SCR 20.02 and 20.06
• SCR 22.26 should be broadened to include that an attorney who is disbarred or suspended cannot be a paralegal.
• New paralegals coming into the field should pass a proficiency exam that is state specific and tests knowledge of legal terminology, research writing and confidentiality rules.

Ms. Quimet-Durow felt strongly that the exam should not be required of someone who has practiced for 20 years. She felt they would consider it an insult and not take the exam.

The group discussed the idea of an employer voucher for someone doing paralegal work. Ms. Quimet-Durow also pointed out that she does obscure federal research and does not work on cases or issues at the state level or perform case law research. She pointed out that she would have to take a course to learn to do it again for such an exam.

Attorney Barker explained that the group decided the exam would be very basic. The concept is that a board or some similar entity would design the exam. Mr. Goudie said that the goal is to have a very basic exam and to provide a study guide. In the future, a proficiency exam would probably be take at the end of school and no refresher would be necessary.

Ms. Quimet-Durow suggested that an attorney or employer could sign an affidavit swearing that the person functioned as a paralegal. Mr. Goudie suggested allowing a paralegal to waive the education requirement and proficiency requirement if that person has worked for a certain number of years as a paralegal.

Attorney Barker summarized the consensus of the group: There should be a basic proficiency exam for new people coming into the field and the group will revisit the proficiency exam when they discuss a grandfather provision.

The group discussed ethics and raised the question; Is ethics a minimum requirement or a part of being a paralegal.

They decided that the Definition Subcommittee Chaired by Attorney Andringa should look at the ethical component. Mr. Goudie and Ms. Quiment-Durow said they would send their association's ethics standards to Ms. Barth for distribution to the other subcommittee.

Ms. Barth announced that the new State Bar CLE Director, Katy Duren, formerly taught paralegal education in Green Bay and suggested the subcommittee invite her to their meeting on the education requirement. The group agreed.

Attorney Barker asked Mr. Goudie to report on the efforts of the Paralegal Association of Wisconsin to draft legislation providing for regulation of paralegals. He reported that the Association has a final draft and Senator Adelman has agreed to hold a public hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee. The Association is looking for co-authors of the bill. They tell Legislators that the Task Force is working concurrently and Legislators are pleased to hear the Bar is moving along on the issue.

Attorney Barker explained that the purpose of the Task Force was to examine paralegal practice and seek a solution that everyone could agree on, including the State Bar Board of Governors and the Supreme Court. She pointed out that she does not want the message going to the Legislature that the Bar has a position on the Association's Legislation when it has not even seen the final draft.

Mr. Goudie said that it is personal opinion that the goals of the legislation can be accomplished through the Task Force. However, the Association wanted to put the legislative effort into motion.

Attorney Barker said that members of the Task Force and the Bar have been sincere in their efforts and will feel blind-sighted by the legislative effort. Ms. Quimet-Durow felt strongly that this is the case.

Mr. Goudie said he will take this issue back to the Paralegal Association of Wisconsin and report their response.

The group decided to tackle the education component at the next meeting and adjourned.

Paralegal Task Force Main