State Bar of Wisconsin

DRAFT
Meeting Minutes
March 15, 2000
State Bar of Wisconsin
Madison

The meeting was called to order at approximately 3:30 p.m. by acting Chair, Attorney John Decker. (Chair Attorney Pam Barker called earlier and said she would be a little late and to start without her.) Those present were Attorney John Frank, John Goudie, Marie Koster, Attorney William Mulligan, Shawn Olley, and Christine Ouimet-Durow. Attending by telephone were Lynn Retzak and Attorney Mary Triggiano. Staff liaison Linda Barth was also present.

Ms. Olley moved and Mr. Goudie seconded approval of the minutes from the January 6, 2000 meeting. Approved.

Attorney Decker provided a brief discussion of major changes he made when he edited the report. Mr. Goudie pointed out that the Paralegal Association of Wisconsin has a problem with the definition, which requires that the paralegal work under the supervision of "an attorney licensed to practice law in this state." He said that under the provision a paralegal couldn't work for an attorney in Illinois or Minnesota. Ms. Olley said that this is the language that the group agreed to and the group should move on.

As the group reviewed the proposed rules, they also decided that the word "individual" should be used instead of the word "person" throughout the report.

Under SCR ___ .02, the group decided that it would be clearer to use "semester credits" instead of just credits. There could be confusion between this chapter and the credits required for continuing education. The group also agreed that it would be clearer to use the word "program" instead of the word "courses."

The group also decided to clarify that the group reviewed but did not recommend competency testing.

Attorney Barker assumed the Chair. The group discussed the special circumstances issue. Attorney Mulligan said that this would definitely be an area discussed by the State Bar of Wisconsin Board of Governors. Attorney Triggiano agreed, pointing out that it dove-tails with the issue of multi-disciplinary practice.

Attorney Mulligan said that, for example, if an attorney hires a nurse for his or her expertise in medical issues, and that person also performs duties a paralegal would perform, does that person need to be licensed under SCR ____ .01?

Attorney Frank said that was a very good example. There is currently a profession of Legal Nurse Consultants that performs those duties. He said, however, there are other areas where there is no title.

Mr. Goudie explained that we assume there will be individuals who don't want to go through the education and will change their title after the 3-year window. It is fine for a nurse to perform those specific duties for an attorney. However, if that nurse wants to be called a paralegal, they will need to go through the educational requirements.

Attorney Mulligan asked if in 5.., 6.., 10 years from now, could an attorney recruit a nurse or accountant who is not a paralegal? Chair Barker answered that an attorney can hire whomever they want, that person cannot call him or herself a paralegal if that person does not meet the requirements. The recommendations would not prohibit anyone from doing paralegal work...that person just cannot hold himself or herself out as a paralegal.

Attorney Mulligan advised that the report should be clear on the point that the definition is not intended to prohibit people from doing paralegal work. The group agreed and decided to leave several paragraphs of the "special circumstances" commentary in the report and to clarify it.

Mr. Goudie added that in the legislation proposed by the Paralegal Association of Wisconsin, allied professions did not need to become paralegals.

The group also discussed the felony prohibition in SCR ___ .05 Attorney Mulligan noted that prohibiting a convicted felon from serving as a paralegal is stricter than the standards set for attorneys. He said there are a lot of felonies that do not relate to barring forever someone from the paralegal profession...like running an office pool.

Ms. Olley suggested just taking it out. Mr. Goudie said that the Paralegal Association is adamant that the felony standard should be included...it's in their organization's standards.

Attorney Mulligan pointed out that the Board of Bar Examiners looks at the underlying conduct for attorneys. Attorney Decker suggested substituting a standard that would prohibit a license for crimes involving moral turpitude. The group agreed.

The group also discussed the confidentiality provisions under the ethics rules and decided to delete language that attempted to allow the paralegal to determine if anything should be reported...the client, is the attorney's client, the group decided. The ethics provisions on sexual relations was also deleted and it was noted that the pretrial publicity provisions should be changed to reflect the recent changes adopted by the Supreme Court.

George Brown, State Bar of Wisconsin Interim Executive Director, joined the group and described the agenda for the April Board of Governors meeting, noting that the Task Force report was on the agenda which must still be approved by the Executive Committee. It was decided that a "discussion draft" of the Paralegal Practice Task Force Report should be mailed separately to the Board of Governors before the end of March. Chair Barker said everyone on the Task Force was invited to attend the Board of Governors meeting which starts at noon on April 14th in Kohler, where the Task Force report will be a reporting item.

Several other issues were raised. Attorney Mulligan suggested that the group be ready to answer questions regarding the fiscal impact of the recommendations. Attorney Frank reminded that group that continuing education may be very affordable if it is conducted through the technical schools' interactive statewide system.

The groups formally thanked Attorney Decker for the splendid editing job on the report.

The meeting adjourned.

Minutes prepared by
Linda Barth, Staff Liaison
Paralegal Practice Task Force

Paralegal Task Force Main