State Bar of Wisconsin

Meeting Minutes
June 24, 1999
Regency Suite, Green Bay

Chair Attorney Pam Barker called the meeting to order at approximately 2:45. Present were Lynn Retzak, Attorney John Frank (an invited guest and paralegal educator from the Eau Claire Technical College), Attorney John Decker, Marie Koster and staff liaison, Linda Barth. Attending via telephone were Attorney William Mulligan, Amy Klein, Rochelle Loewenhagen and Kathy Donovan for Shawn Olley.

Approval of the November 19, 1998 Minutes

A quorum was not present. Ms. Barth was asked to send a survey to members of the Task Force requesting a vote on the minutes. Ms. Barth noted that John Goudie had sent a letter pointing to several typos in the minutes, which she would correct before sending to Task Force members.

Paralegal Practice Task Force Website

Ms. Barth had set up a projection of the Task Force Website proposal, which was reviewed by members present. They asked that some language be added to the introduction that says that the Task Force is in the middle of it's work and the page presents the progress the group has made on the issue. She was also instructed to add her e-mail address so people had someone to send questions and comments to.

The group thanked Lori Phelps, the staff person responsible for the design, and asked Ms. Barth to let her know that the Task Force is extremely pleased with web page.

Report from the Chair

Attorney Barker said that there are two reasons that the group has not met for a while. First, she smashed her ankle and was flat on her back after surgery. Second, she explained that she had been working on funding for the Task Force. The group's monthly meetings put the Task Force over budget. All State Bar committees over budget were put on hold and told to report to the Finance Committee regarding the overage.

Attorney Barker was pleased to report that funding has been approved for the rest of the 99 fiscal year and for the next fiscal year, as well. She thanked Ms. Barth for her help in terms of getting funding and advocating for the group.

Grandfather Clause

Ms. Barth said that this was added to the agenda because Mr. Goudie had mentioned he had some concerns with the language. However, his letter pointed to only typographical and grammatical concerns.

Attorney Barker said that her goal was to have members of the Task Force complete their chapters in the near future so the report can be formatted. If the report is in sufficient shape, she would like to give the preliminary report to the Board of Governors at their September meeting as a reporting item. The Board could then approve the report at their next meeting. She also cautioned that the report needs to be persuasive and we should not simply slap something together.

Attorney Barker said that if the group does not have a written report prepared for the September Board meeting, she will make an oral report.

The next step, she explained, is to start talking to BBE and BAPR. The Task Force proposal seems headed towards linking into existing agencies, Attorney Barker noted. If the agencies are not willing to take on such a model, then the Task Force could have a problem.

Education Proposal

Ms. Retzak described the education package. She noted that since the credits listed do not add up to the 18 credits required, there could be some confusion. Attorney Barker suggested that another letter could be added to clarify that the remainder of credits should be paralegal-related. Attorney Frank said that the current language says "minimum" and Ms. Loewenhagen agreed. It was also noted that the language refers to "XX.ZZ" which also related to the lettering (at this point) of the grandfather clause. The group agreed to the lettering change.

Attorney Mulligan described his discussions with other Board of Governors members and said they were concerned about the education draft. Many feel that the requirements are not meaningful to their office/areas of practice. They are concerned about the training provided in a specialty area, about the cost of the education and about the barriers for a small town firm in recruiting a paralegal.

He further explained that Board members expressed concern about hiring a paralegal with all the educational background when they just need a paralegal in a specialty area. Ms. Loewenhagen said that her formal training as a paralegal has allowed her to excel in a general practice law firm because she has a basic knowledge of legal concepts. She said that attorneys are not required to hire a paralegal and can hire anyone but they cannot call them a paralegal. Firms in small town, she pointed out, can hire the same type of individuals they hire now...they just can't call them a paralegal.

Ms. Retzak said that a wide range of course requirements is helpful to the understanding of the judicial system. The course work that is being required helps with a basic understanding of the judicial system.

Attorney Mulligan related that some attorneys were not interested in hiring someone who has training in litigation. He said that the Task Force is looking at creating a category of individuals who are going to be licensed as a paralegal. So, then we'll see law firms create a group called legal assistants.

Ms. Retzak pointed out that courses like legal writing help teach critical thinking. This helps create important skills even though the individual may not be hired to do research.

Attorney Barker said there is a difference between basic education and continuing CLE. CLE is where the specialization can start. Ms. Loewenhagen said that a broad education is important in today's mobile society. A paralegal can start out working in real estate and, if they have a broad background, they can go to work a different practice area later. One of the reasons we are interested in establishing a "paralegal" is to allow them to go to other jobs and guarantee a level of competence.

Attorney Barker said that the Task Force looked at the fundamental policy issues of a professional track for paralegals versus the status quo. Some of the comments Attorney Mulligan has related come from individuals who do not seem to want paralegal licensure and the Task Force was not going to revisit the policy issue of whether or not there should be licensure. On the other hand, the Task Force should look at the educational requirements and determine what is really necessary and alleviate burdensome requirements. Attorney Mulligan said the educational proposal should be changed to be more responsive to the attorney who works in the north woods in real estate.

Attorney Frank said that he is a small town attorney and started as a litigator. He now teaches paralegals. Now, he can't teach and litigate so is does real estate. He believes teaching critical thinking to paralegal students is important so paralegals can assist attorneys whether their practice is in real estate or litigation.

Attorney Mulligan related that the number of credits are a concern to attorney in rural areas. Perhaps there should be more flexibility in the number of credits. The group started discussing the 6 credits of litigation and whether it can be taught in fewer credits.

Attorney Mulligan said it could be less of a problem if fewer required credits are litigation credits. The marketplace will dictate whether or not a firm will want someone with more than 1 litigation credit. Attorney Barker suggested only 1 litigation credit would be necessary to provide paralegals with basic litigation fundamentals.

Ms. Retazk said that students will probably have more litigation credits if they are trained here, but the 1 credit of Wisconsin litigation takes care of the out of state problem where paralegals have been trained out of state but need to understand the Wisconsin litigation system. The consensus was to change the proposal to 1 credit for Wisconsin litigation.

The group then asked Attorney Mulligan if the attorneys he has talked to have problems with the number of CLE credits. Attorney Mulligan replied that attorneys have questioned the need for people who are not attorneys to have 15 CLE credit hours. He said it may not be a problem for paralegals in Milwaukee but in rural areas the paralegal may have to take a whole or half day off of work just to receive the CLE hours required.

Attorney Barker said that if there is a question of whether CLE would be accessible, we have already begun checking with the State Bar about making available paralegal courses throughout the state. This would include using the latest technology so that a paralegal may not even have to travel from his or her office. Attorney Mulligan said that if there is a delivery system, then lawyers in rural areas might not have as many problems.

Ms. Retzak explained that the Wisconsin Technical College Network is already working very effectively. Attorney Frank added that Technical Colleges are networked and already providing interactive broadcasting. This also could be used for paralegal education and CLE.

Attorney Barker noted that it would be important to put a description of the delivery system in the Task Force report. Then she asked the Task Force for a consensus on changing the CLE requirement from 15 credit hours to 10 credit hours every two years. Since a paralegal could meet these requirements in less than a one-day session every year. The Task Force agreed to reduce the CLE reuqirement to 10 credits every 2-year period. Ms. Koster said that the Paralegal Association of Wisconsin requires 4 CLE every year.

Attorney Barker summarized that the group agreed to reduce the litigation credits and the number of CLE credits to address the issues Attorney Mulligan brought to the group. She said that the dialogue was very helpful. She thanked Attorney Mulligan for the work he did in getting Task Force funding from the Finance Committee.

Ms. Barth was directed to send the updated education proposal to the Task Force members along with a survey to get a vote on the proposal, since a quorum was not present.

Statistics

Ms. Koster and Ms. Klein reported results of their surveys to their members regarding the likelihood of their members to apply for licensure. It was requested that their reports be submitted in writing and attached to the minutes.

Reports

Attorney Barker said it is important for everyone to work on his or her portion of the report, which is as follows:

• Introduction--Goudie and Decker
• Definition--Andringa
• Ethics--Remington
• Grandfather Clause--Olley
• Standards--to be assigned by the Chair of the Education Subcommittee upon approval of the proposal

Next Meeting

Attorney Barker said she would send information out to members about the next meeting as well as surveys on the education proposal and the November 19, 1999 minutes.

The meeting adjourned.

Paralegal Task Force Main