State Bar of Wisconsin

Meeting Minutes
October 28, 1998

Chair, Attorney Pam Barker called the meeting to order at approximately 8:30 a.m. Members in attendance were Attorney Casey Andringa, Ms. Mary Celentani, Attorney Mary Lynne Donohue, Mr. John Goudie, Ms. Marie Koster, Ms. Shawn Olley, Attorney Marry Triggiano Hunt, Ms. Amy Klein and Ms. Lynn Retzak. Attorney Bill Mulligan attended by telephone. Staff liaison Ms. Linda Barth was also present.

Task Force members read the first draft of the article written by Diane Molvig for the Wisconsin Lawyer Magazine December publication on the issue of the Task Force and creating a licensure program for paralegals. Several suggestions and corrections were made to the article, which Ms. Barth said she would take to the magazine's editorial staff. Overall, the group was pleased with the article.

Grandfather Clause Subcommittee

The Grandfather Clause Subcommittee met earlier in the morning to finalize their recommendations, which were typed up and distributed. It was submitted as follows:

LICENSURE BASED UPON EMPLOYMENT AND EXPERIENCE-"GRANDFATHER" CLAUSE

In addition to those who qualify to be licensed as paralegals by the criteria set forth above, for a limited time a person may qualify to be licensed as an employed paralegal in Wisconsin if the person meets the following qualifications:

A person is eligible for licensure upon:

Proof that the person is at least twenty-one (21) years of age with a High School diploma or equivalent education at the time of the application; and

1. The person shows proof of employment for no less than three (3) years full time (32 hours per week) or the equivalent as a paralegal, not necessarily consecutively, at any time during the five (5) years immediately preceding the effective date of SCR______; and
2. The past paralegal work of any person seeking licensure as a paralegal under subsection (2) shall be documented by the certification of the attorney or attorneys under whose supervision the work was performed. The form and content of any such certificate shall be prescribed by the licensing agency; and
3. The person must complete three (3) CLE ethics credits as approved by the licensing agency, a certificate of completion to accompany their application; and
4. The person must make application for licensure within three (3) years after the effective date of these rules.

Ms. Retzak suggested that the language clarify that a person licensed under the grandfather clause must adhere to other requirements...like CLE. The group suggested adding language that says the paralegal must maintain the license in accordance with the requirements of the licensing agency. It was also suggested that the word "employed" be deleted from the first paragraph.

Attorney Donohue asked about situations where the attorney and paralegal did not get along and the attorney refused to certify the individual worked as a paralegal...or the attorney dies. She also pointed to contract paralegals, would they need a certificate from every attorney they worked for over the past 3 to 5 years?

Attorney Andringa said there is enough authority in the licensing agency-they can have flexibility if there is an individual who has special circumstances. There are people who may just not qualify.

Attorney Donohue said she was concerned about due process for individuals who want to make a living as a paralegal. Chair Barker said she had the same concerns. Ms. Olley said those individuals can always become licensed through the education alternative. For contract paralegals, she added, billings for paralegal services may suffice.

Attorney Andringa noted that this does not apply to legal secretaries or legal assistants, but very qualified individuals. He asked, how many good legal secretaries really care about being called a paralegal?

Chair Barker pointed out that there should be provisions for someone who may have had a falling out with their employer...like a test. Ms. Olley said the form could have a provision for special circumstances. Attorney Donohue suggested adding some language to address due process concerns, give the licensing agency the ability to look at specific circumstances and exercise discretion.

Ms. Koster asked about the situation where the attorney is truly saying this person is not qualified, then we take away the attorney's ability to keep the person out of the field.

Chair Barker suggested that a provision be added to allow someone to take an exam prepared by the licensing agency. Mr. Goudie said that his association (Paralegal Association of Wisconsin) supports testing but the Subcommittee decided on this direction for expediency.

The Task Force discussed exams that are currently available that may be appropriate. Mr. Goudie said that the associations' exams are too extensive. Ms. Celentani said that the State provided paralegal exams. She said she would try to get a copy of the exam.

Chair Barker pointed out that the more requirements in the rules, the less likely BBE and BAPR will sign on as the regulating authorities. Attorney Andringa added, the good news is that the grandfather clause is for a limited period of time.

Ms. Retzak said the American Association of Paralegal Educators looked at entry level exams but decided against them for political reasons. The group is still looking at the idea but not very far along.

Chair Barker explained that the Task Force does not necessarily have to develop an exam, but only have one as an example as part of the final report.

The Task Force agreed that language would be added to state that in the event an individual cannot meet criteria #2, the agency may grant a waiver and the individual can take a proficiency test administered by the licensing agency.

Attorney Donohue then asked why the Subcommittee required 21 years of age. She suggested that the group only put in the rules the items that are absolutely necessary. Mr. Goudie said it just made sense when one does the math and Attorney Andringa said it was a decision about maturity.

Chair Barker said that the more requirements in the rules, the more someone will fixate on them. Attorney Mulligan said that was a valid point.

Mr. Goudie said that there needs to be a component that says this is a capable person.

Attorney Andringa conceded that in this context, how relevant is age-a high school diploma and three years experience is already required. He suggested that the age provision be dropped. The Task Force agreed.

Chair Barker said that rather than vote on the provision at this point, she would like the provision redrafted and brought before the Task Force for final approval at the next meeting. She also asked that paragraph 2 of #2 be clarified so that it is clear that if you have two different employers over the past 5 years you only need to go back to one.

Structure Subcommittee

Chair Barker explained that before there is a Structure Subcommittee the Task Force needs to get a handle on what licensing will cost, the administrative costs and how they will be paid...how many individuals will be affected and how many will want a paralegal license. We have to think about gathering information.

Ms. Retzak said that the technical schools can survey their graduates and can get a feel for interest out there currently.

Chair Barker asked the paralegal associations to try to put together some numbers on how many paralegal there are in Wisconsin, how many will initially want to become a paralegal and how many, on the average, will apply each year.

Education Subcommittee

Ms. Retzak explained that she was at a conference where there was a lot of discussion about the New Jersey proposal. John Frank helped her draft some language on education requirements that she distributed and asked for feedback.

Attorney Andringa recommended establishing credit hours and moving the CLE provision under the authority of the licensing agency. The group wondered why the proposed rule required 24 credits when the ABA only requires 18. Chair Barker suggested that it is important to provide the reasoning for why the Task Force asks for a certain number.

Attorney Donohue suggested looking at graduation from a Wisconsin school accepted as an automatic license-it keeps costs down, it's simple and why put paralegals through a grizzly exam. Attorney Andringa pointed out that attorneys only have two schools...there are many more for paralegals. Donohue explained that the ABA puts schools through rigorous requirements and Ms. Retzak described the technical schools requirements.

Ms. Olley said that and ABA-approved school might address a huge population. Attorney Donohue said that when someone applies for a license they submit their transcript and maybe they don't even necessarily have to be from Wisconsin.

Ms. Retzak said she will redraft the education provision and send it to the Education Subcommittee for comments.

Chair Barker asked Mr. Goudie if he could put together language with the basic criteria the Standards Subcommittee agreed to earlier for consideration by the Task Force. She also asked the Chairs of the subcommittees to think about moving forward with the recommendations and how the text should be included in a report.

Chair Barker asked Ms. Barth to pull together examples of different reports and formats and bring them to the next meeting for Task Force members to review. She said that the Task Force needs a format that provides for the debate, decision-making and rationale or the Board of Governors won't fully appreciate everything that went into the Task Force's work.

Chair Barker provided a timeline for the Task Force. Originally, the target date to have everything together was January, then the Task Force could start educating the Board of Governors, BBE and BAPR. Finally, the formal official report would go to the Board of Governors in April. While this is an ambitious timeline and depends on the response we receive from BBE and BAPR, Chair Barker advised that the Task Force try to stick to this timeline.

She said that at the next meeting the Task Force would approve the grandfather clause, go through the Education Subcommittee recommendations and then start the administrative piece. She would like to see the entire policy written to give to BBE and BAPR.

The next meeting was tentatively set for 9:00 a.m. on November 20th at the State Bar Center in Madison.

The meeting adjourned.

Paralegal Task Force Main