State Bar of Wisconsin

Meeting Minutes
November 19, 1998

Chair, Attorney Pam Barker called the meeting to order at approximately 9:00 a.m. Members present were Ms. Mary Celentani, Mr. John Goudie, Ms. Marie Koster, Ms. Rochelle Loewenhagen, Ms. Christine Ouimet-Durow, Attorney Frank Remington, Ms. Amy Klein, Attorney John Decker and Attorney Donald Lubner. Attending via telephone were Ms. Lynn Retzak and Attorney Mary Triggiano Hunt. State Bar staff liaison Ms. Linda Barth was also present.

Mr. Goudie moved and Attorney Lubner seconded approval of the October 28, 1998 minutes. Motion carried.

Grandfather Clause Subcommittee Report

Mr. Goudie distributed a new draft of the language with all the changes suggested at the October 28th meeting. He explained the changes: The age of "21" is deleted because the education and experience criteria will suffice. There is a provision for those who cannot meet the certificate of compliance requirement due to a falling-out with or the death of an attorney supervisor. It provides the agency with the discretion to give a test.

Ms. Celentani said she had tried to get copies of the state paralegal test but the tests are all new and the state will not released them. She said she will try to go to other states and get a copy of their tests.

Attorney Remington questioned the provision of a test. He said that originally the group decided to go with a grandfather clause in lieu of testing because a test would be too difficult to create. So, now we have come full circle and have both.

Ms. Retzak said she has put the question or a competency test out on the list serve to paralegal educators and there is a former educator, now publisher, who has a competency exit exam. She will send sample questions (the software is $250).

Attorney Remington said that the Task Force has discussed the problems with a competency exam. Now, the exam is back in the mix. If we can have the exam for a few circumstances, why shouldn't it be given to everyone?

Mr. Goudie answered that it is a matter of time and cost-it will be a lot less costly to give the exam to a small percentage that have special circumstances.

Attorney Remington questioned the 32-hours per week requirement and asked why the time requirement is not more clearly stated. The members discussed the language regarding the time requirement and decided to change it to the total number of hours over a 5-year period. The group decided the language should simply state that 4,800 hours of paralegal work over the past 5 years is required.

Chair Barker pointed out that the group decided it would not develop a test but just provide examples so the Board of Governors and others have an idea of what we're talking about. At the previous meeting, she said, there were concerns voiced over the situation where a person has a falling out with their employer and the employer won't certify they worked as a paralegal. Therefore, there should be a fallback position. We will get a sample test and put it in the appendix of the final report.

Attorney Remington said he sees three ways to get a license under the plan: #1. Have a lawyer certify. #2. School diploma. #3. Make up a good story and take a test. He said that he felt the test could be a break in the dyke...the exception has potential for abuse.

Chair Barker explained that this is what BBE and BAPR do for attorneys-they investigate.

Attorney Lubner noted that generally, someone is hired to make a test, then a testing psychologist is hired to determine the format of the test, then it is put in the computer and ultimately you don't end up with the original content.

Mr. Goudie said that the Department of Regulation and Licensing came up with a test for home inspectors in about a year-and-a-half.

Chair Barker noted that the group will run the report past BAPR and BBE and we can find out from them if the discretion for testing is problematic. Mr. Goudie said that the agency is going to be much happier if ¾'s of the paralegals are certified and only ¼ is tested.

Attorney Lubner warned that every program will be geared to the test. Ms. Retzak added that this is only for the 3-year window and won't affect new students.

The question of adoption for the grandfather language as modified was called by Chair Barker. Motion carried with one no vote by Attorney Remington.

Education Subcommittee Report

Ms. Retzak described the education language and discussed the rationale of the subcommittee. She said the minimum grade of "C" will help assure competency. They picked 16 hours of CLE because they are usually provided in 4-hour chunks and they decided that CLE through an accredited college through college credits should count, as well.

Attorney Remington pointed out that in B-there is no requirement for where the paralegal gets the degree. Ms. Retzak agreed that requirement could be added.

Attorney Remington asked about the situation when a paralegal studies and graduates from a school in Louisiana (their legal system bears little resemblance to Wisconsin's legal system). They graduate from an accredited school but know nothing about Wisconsin law. Ms. Klein said she graduated from Winnona in Minnesota and they concentrated and tested on federal law.

Attorney Remington was concerned that none of the requirements apply to Wisconsin law and suggested requiring a degree from a Wisconsin institution teaching Wisconsin law. If someone is going to take a crash course to become a paralegal they should do it in Wisconsin. Ms. Retzak pointed out that there are Wisconsin institutions that do not teach Wisconsin law.

Chair Barked asked the subcommittee to look into this issue and try to develop a solution.

Attorney Remington also suggested that the Supreme Court works with the Board of Visitors and controls what is taught, so paralegals from Wisconsin institutions could have the diploma privilege.

Ms. Loewenhagen asked why CLE hours are set at 16 credits when she has found that most CLE programs are in 6-hour segments. Attorney Remington asked why it was called continuing paralegal education instead of just CLE. Chair Barker asked the subcommittee to try to quantify the rationale behind the level of credits that will be required.

Attorney Remington suggested 30 credits, just like attorneys. Ms. Retzak said that many paralegals must pay for the credits themselves and 30 credits would be a burden. Ms. Loewenhagen said she is a paralegal from up North and doesn't make the same amount paralegals make in Milwaukee. She works for a sole practitioner-it is too much of a burden on her and her boss to pay for that many credits. I wouldn't pursue the license if this is the requirement.

Attorney Lubner said the point about cost is well taken, paralegals cost less and help make legal services less expensive. Conventions are not conveniently located. He said that 15 hours should be fine.

Mr. Goudie said the rationale that paralegals cost less and contribute to effective delivery of legal services is not true if paralegals have the same requirements as attorneys.

Chair Barker asked Ms. Barth to make sure that Ms. Duren, State Bar CLE Director, be invited to the next meeting to discuss the provision of CLE programs.

Mr. Lubner explained that if there is demand, the seminars will be there. He also pointed out that it is not practical to have paralegals go to legal education. The legal education is esoteric while paralegals need education in filling out forms and client meetings. There should be a difference between paralegal education and legal education.

Information Sharing

Mr. Goudie distributed the 1996 State Occupation, Employment and Wage Data Survey, which sets the number of paralegals in Wisconsin at 2,240. Ms. Retzak said she sent out surveys to students and asked them if licensing is a reality, would they apply. Most respondents said they are likely or somewhat likely to apply.

Mr. Goudie noted that the definition used in the employment survey fits the Task Force's definition so the numbers must be pretty close. In the Paralegal Association of Wisconsin, he said they see turnover-people who become paralegals usually replace paralegals who move on to other professions. The only other way to determine how many paralegals are out there is a telephone survey.

Ms. Celentani pointed out that the Department of Justice recently did such a survey on another matter and they found firms were reluctant to give out information.

Chair Barker asked if it is possible to find out how the employment survey was sent out.

Ms. Koster suggested that they could do a survey of the Paralegal Association of Wisconsin and the Madison Area Paralegal Association said they could also do a survey. Chair Barker said this type of information would be very helpful and encouraged both groups to get as much input as possible.

Report Format

Ms. Barth distributed a format used by the Legislative Council for their reports and the format used by the State Bar for their commission reports. The group discussed the pluses and minuses of the different formats. Mr. Goudie said he liked the format used in the New Jersey report. Chair Barker summarized the groups comments and said that the Task Force should try to use the New Jersey report format and also the commission report format which has a summary of recommendations on a different color paper followed by the actual language and rationale with appendices for attachments.

Chair Barker asked each subcommittee to assign someone to start writing each section. Mr. Goudie and Attorney Decker agreed to write the beginning history of the project.

Next Meeting

Chair Barker said she would send a survey out with dates for the next meeting, probably in January. At that meeting, the group will approve the education recommendations and look at the information from the surveys.

The meeting adjourned.

Paralegal Task Force Main