State Bar of Wisconsin

Meeting Minutes
September 9, 1997

The meeting started at approximately 12:00 Noon. Attending were Attorney Cornelius Andringa, Chair, Attorney Pamela Barker, Attorney Mary Lynne Donohue, Mr. John Goudie, Ms. Rochelle Loewenhagen, Attorney William Mulligan, Ms. Christine Ouimet-Durow and Attorney Frank Remington. State Bar CLE Director Katy Duren and Task Force staff liaison Linda Barth were also present.

With all the new members on the Task Force, introductions were made and Chair Barker described the history of the Task Force and the two subcommittees. She discussed the Standards Subcommittee recommendation on proficiency exams and the ethics provisions that the Definition Subcommittee would take on.

She explained that the ultimate goal of the Task Force is to submit a report to the Board of Governors and seek approval to petition the Supreme Court.

Mr. Goudie reported on the Paralegal Association of Wisconsin's legislative efforts for paralegal licensing. He explained that the group has not formally met but will meet on September 20. He felt that indications are that the organization will probably table legislative efforts pending results of the Task Force.

The members discussed the anticipated reaction of the Board of Governors and the relationship between the paralegals and the attorneys on the Task Force.

Attorney Remington suggested that a government paralegal be appointed to the Task Force and Ms. Barth was directed to follow up.

Ms. Ouimet-Durow noted that the Task Force has an uneven split of paralegals-more from the Paralegal Association of Wisconsin and than the Madison Area Paralegal Association. Ms. Loewenhagen agreed that it seemed like that but that she was a member of the Paralegal Association of Wisconsin but did not agree with all their policies. It was decided that the boundaries of allegiances to organization have not been apparent to date but that members of the Task Force would keep the issue in mind.

The Task Force then split into Subcommittees and their minutes follow:

Standards Subcommittee

Mr. Goudie asked that the phrasing of the minutes from the last meeting be amended to state that both he and the Paralegal Association of Wisconsin support the efforts of the Paralegal Task Force. It is, however, the policy of the Paralegal Association of Wisconsin to continue to pursue legislation.

The Subcommittee agreed that a minimum education/testing component is necessary and that the task at hand is to decide what form the minimum requirement will take. Issues include:

• minimum education requirement alone (ABA versus non-ABA approved paralegal programs)
• proficiency exam alone (who would administer?)
• combination of education and testing (example: graduates of ABA approved paralegal programs would not have to take proficiency exam, all others would)

Most of the discussion focused on entry level requirements. A separate issue is educational/testing for those who are grandfathered in.

There was discussion on the costs associated with administering any regulatory scheme. Ms. Barth was asked to gather information for the BBE and BAPR on costs associated with administering similar programs for attorneys.

Ms. Duren volunteered to gather information on the ABA requirements for paralegal program approval and the State Technical College's Core Curriculum to share with the Committee.

Definition/Ethics Subcommittee

The group started by looking at the two documents on ethics, one submitted by Paralegal Association of Wisconsin and the other by the Madison Area Paralegal Association.

There was discussion about the possibility to very carefully carve out an exception where a paralegal could work independently in domestic abuse cases. If such an exclusion existed, which cannons of ethics would apply? It was noted that if a paralegal goes into court without the supervision of an attorney then the Task Force definition doesn't apply.

The Subcommittee discussed their goal-to develop standards of conduct that makes the attorney ultimately accountable and pays the insurance, but the paralegal should be accountable to a set of ethics.

The Subcommittee saw several barriers. If BAPR is responsible for enforcing standards of conduct it could get expensive and it would require a whole new bureaucracy.

The Subcommittee also looked at a situation where an attorney is being investigated. If the paralegal violated a code of ethics is it mitigating circumstances for the attorney?

It was noted that it is important to have a code of ethics for paralegals and to make them accountable, otherwise they will just move from job to job doing the same poor work. The group agreed that the closed paralegal ethics align with attorney ethics, the better. The paralegal is bound to act under an attorney's supervision as an attorney would act.

The group directed Ms. Barth to send out the Supreme Court rules that set the rules of conduct for attorneys. The Subcommittee could then look at the rules governing attorneys to see how they related to a paralegal's work...ie. confidentiality. Ms. Barth was asked to collect members' comments and distribute them before the next meeting.

The next meeting of the Ethics/Definition Subcommittee was set for Wednesday, October 8th at 8:00 a.m. in Madison.

Paralegal Task Force Main