reporter
LOS ANGELES
PARALEGAL
ASSOCIATION
www.lapa.org
JUNE 2007
VOLUME 35 / ISSUE 06
I N R E V I E W. . .
1
F E AT U R E A RT I C L E
Feature Article:
Laws Affecting the
Employment of Paralegals
1
President’s
Message:
by Mireya A.R. Llaurado
Most sizeable companies and organizations – not just law firms – well understand that paralegals are essential to their success. Paralegals provide invaluable
and cost-effective assistance in helping to research legal issues, conducting
interviews, gathering facts, as well as in monitoring pending transactions,
potential claims or filed lawsuits. According to a survey by the National
Federation of Paralegal Associations, nearly a third of all paralegals work in
companies, government and organizations – not in law firms. Therefore, all legal
employers need to pay close attention to the employment laws and other
statutes, as well as ethical rules, that impact paralegals.
3 Opportunities and
An Apology
3
Letter From
the Editor:
Paralegal Day
is on the Way !!!
7
Feature Article:
Paralegal Ethics,
We Walk a Thin Line...
a Tight Tightrope
9
The Department of Labor is frequently called upon to address the issue of payment
of overtime wages, as well as the application of other wage laws, to paralegals.
It may surprise many attorneys that, in 2000, the California legislature
passed laws establishing minimum qualifications for the paralegal occupation,
with revised statutes that became effective in 2004. Clearly, the legal issues
affecting paralegals are much more extensive than the frequently expressed
concern over the unauthorized practice of law.
continued on page 12
Student’s
Perspective:
Got Network?
11
Laws Affecting the Employment
of Paralegals
Peanut Gallery:
Make Your Resume
Work for You!
PRESIDENT’S MESSAGE
LAPA’S
OFFICE HOURS
3 Opportunities and An Apology
Direct your inquiries to LAPA’s
Administrative Manager, Tracey
Booth, at 866.626.LAPA: Tuesday,
Wednesday and Thursday 9:00 a.m. 12:00 noon. contact info on page 23.
Also in This Issue:
Directors’ Meeting Summary
Calendar of Events
LAPA News
NALA News
CAPA Corner
LAPA Career Center Info
CAPA 19th Annual Edu. Conf.
NALA 32nd Annual Edu. Conf.
New & Renewing Members
Board of Directors Listing
2
3
4
5
6
7
15
20
22
23
by Donna Reznick-Goodich, CLA
This month’s Reporter is an idea-packed issue so I will
just add a brief note about the career opportunities that
LAPA is offering this month.
The MEMBERSHIP COMMITTEE, headed by Board
Director Denise Sierra, is planning its first meeting of the year and looking for
more members and new ideas. Socializing and networking are currently on
the agenda, especially after the success of the South Bay’s get-together. Want
a LAPA social in your neighborhood? Meet other paralegal living and working
nearby? Email Denise at [email protected]
The INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY COMMITTEE has scheduled its first MCLE
continued on page 4
DIRECTORS’ MEETING SUMMARY
by Andrea Mitchell, Secretary Pro-Tem
The Board of Directors Meeting was held at the
offices of Silver & Freedman on May 1, 2007.
• The first item was the approval of the Board minutes
from April 3, 2007. After discussion and some
revisions noted, the minutes were approved.
• The Treasurer, Thomas Horlick, gave the Treasurer
and the Administrative Manager’s Report. Thomas
reported that expenses were high but otherwise
normal compared to 2006. He pointed out that
the figures speak for themselves. He added that
there is $10,598.00 cash on hand. With regard to
the Administrative Manager’s Report, the overall
membership numbers were in the mid 600’s, which
was high. He informed the Board that a bonus
check, voted on and approved in January 2007,
was issued to Tracey Booth that same day.
• Bobby Rimas presented the Vice-President of
Marketing & Planning Report which indicated that
due to marketing activities, there were additional
freelance paralegal registrants and October
Conference Exhibitors.
• The Website Committee Report was presented by
Bobby Rimas who distributed to the Board, a copy
of LAPA’s website page. He informed the Board
that he was working with the web designer on
LAPA REPORTER
The Reporter is published monthly by the Los Angeles Paralegal
Association. The news and views presented express the authors’
views and not necessarily those of LAPA. Publication of any article or
advertisement does not imply endorsement of the opinions, products
or services offered. LAPA assumes no responsibility for verifying facts
offered by contributing authors or in reprinted articles. Readers
should consider information contained in these articles as guidelines
to be independently confirmed as to timeliness.
©2007 Los Angeles Paralegal Association. All rights reserved.
THE ADVERTISING AND EDITORIAL DEADLINE IS THE 5TH OF
THE MONTH PRIOR TO PUBLICATION.
Articles and News items should be directed to LAPA at [email protected].
Inquiries about making a submission should be directed to LAPA at
[email protected], or call Tracey Booth at (866) 626-LAPA.
Inquiries about advertising placement, applications, membership
materials and address changes should be directed to Tracey Booth,
LAPA Administrative Manager, at (866) 626-LAPA.
Articles will be published as space permits. The Newsletter
Committee reserves approval and edit rights on any article submitted.
The Los Angeles Paralegal Association is a non-profit, mutual benefit
corporation within the meaning of section 501(c)(6) of the Internal
Revenue Code. Membership dues and donations to LAPA are not tax
deductible as charitable gifts, but may be deductible as related business
expenses. LAPA suggests that you consult your tax advisor in this regard.
2 LAPA JUNE 2007 / VOLUME 35 / ISSUE 06
different features to the page. Additional revisions
were suggested and discussed by the Board.
Section/Committee Reports
• Litigation - Donna Reznick-Goodich announced that
there is still an opening for a Litigation Chairperson.
Heide Maersch informed the Board that she plans
to contact the prior committee members to see if
anyone is interested in filling the position.
• NALA - Bobby Rimas presented a NALA Liaison
report and indicated that he filed LAPA’s Affiliated
Association Quarterly Report with NALA headquarters.
• CAPA - Heide Maersch informed the Board that the
President of CAPA attends conferences hosted by
affiliated associations such as AAfPE, NALA and
NFPA. She informed the Board that she has
requested that CAPA extend the early registration
deadline and that she would check to see if the
hotel would open for additional rooms at the
conference rate.
• Downtown – Mary Theroux reported that a webinar
regarding UCC reports was being planned for mid
to late July. The webinar will be designed for
intermediate paralegals to analyze and interpret
UCC reports. CSC is the sponsor for the seminar.
LAPA would provide 1 hour MCLE credit to the
attendees. The Board discussed ways to track
attendance to the seminar.
• Intellectual Property – Terry Kiel reported that the
inaugural meeting of the IP Committee was held on
April 5, 2007. The committee discussed arranging
for an IP-related MCLE seminar in June or July at
continued on page 4
CALENDAR OF EVENTS
Contact telephone numbers on page 23.
JUNE
5- Board of Directors Meeting – tba, Donna Reznick-Goodich.
7- CLA Review Course – Kathleen Rosenstock, ACP & Catherine
9141621232830-
Durgin, CLAS, see page 17.
CLA Review Course – Kathleen Rosenstock, ACP & Catherine
Durgin, CLAS, see page 17.
CLA Review Course – Kathleen Rosenstock, ACP & Catherine
Durgin, CLAS, see page 17.
CLA Review Course – Kathleen Rosenstock, ACP & Catherine
Durgin, CLAS, see page 17.
CLA Review Course – Kathleen Rosenstock, ACP & Catherine
Durgin, CLAS, see page 17.
CAPA Annual June Conference – San Diego, see page 21.
CLA Review Course – Kathleen Rosenstock, ACP & Catherine
Durgin, CLAS, see page 17.
CLA Review Course – Kathleen Rosenstock, ACP & Catherine
Durgin, CLAS, see page 17.
Save The Date!!!
LAPA’s Downtown and Corporate/Real Estate
Sections will be hosting a webinar on August
1, 2007 at 11:00 a.m. (PDT) regarding UCC
searches. This webinar will provide information
on the requirements to conduct a diligent UCC
search, correctly interpreting the results, what
to request when ordering the search, analyzing
contents and interpreting the effect of
subsequent related records. The webinar will
be conducted by Paul Hodnefield, Associate
General Counsel of Corporation Service
Company (“CSC”).
More information to follow... LETTER FROM THE EDITOR
Paralegal Day
is on the Way !!!
by Carl D. Alvarado – Editor for LAPA
I’d be somewhat remiss in my
responsibilities as editor of this
fine organization, if I didn’t take
the time to bring to our members attention, the
arrival of one of the most important holidays of the
year which occurs on June 22nd. For those of you
unaware of the most revered of holiday occasions
within our profession, Paralegal Day occurs on that
date. To add to the festivities of the event, June
22nd falls on a Friday and that, in and of itself, is
cause for me to celebrate!
I’d be willing to bet, that if some sort of solidarity
were to take place and all the paralegals in the State
of California got together for one big push at the
Governor’s office, we could convince him to make
paralegal day a State holiday, thereby allowing us all
to take the day off with pay. If truth be told however,
I can never seem to find enough interested parties
to back me on that, so I guess I’ll just be coming to
work on June 22nd, the same as the rest of my fellow
constituents. What I find even more perplexing is
this; there isn’t a national Lawyers Day, or Junior
Associate’s Day, or a national holiday in honor of the
partners of the firm, so why is it that paralegals
aren’t the ones in charge? I wouldn’t mind being the
first paralegal to draft up a petition for our beloved
governor to sign, but I’m still waiting for a response
to last year’s proposal in which I pretty much asked
for the same thing. I’m still waiting…though I do
expect a response any day now.
All this cause for celebration brings to light an interesting
story most appropriate for this occasion:
A paralegal, an associate and a partner of a large
law firm are walking through a city park, when they
spotted an antique oil lamp.
The paralegal picked it up, but both the associate
and partner grabbed for it at the same time, each
arguing that they found it first. Their tussling had
the effect of rubbing the lamp, and to their shock
continued on page 18
VOLUME 35 / ISSUE 06 / JUNE 2007 LAPA
3
LAPA NEWS
Michelle Hofeling of Henjum Goucher, Melissa Emery of Optimal Translation,
and Melissa Card of Henjum Goucher
South Bay Networking
Mixer Kick-Off a Success!!!
On April 26, 2007 Henjum Goucher Litigation Services
sponsored a paralegal networking mixer at the
Torrance South Bay Hilton to kick off the regeneration
of LAPA’s South Bay Section. Not only did paralegals
from the South Bay attend, but paralegals from
numerous other surrounding areas as far away as 45
miles attended. The networking amongst the
paralegals was great - for starters, those that have
been in the field for quite some time shared tid-bits
P R E S I D E N T ’ S M E S S A G E - continued from page 1
seminar for July 10, 2007 at the Olympic
Collection. This group has great enthusiasm and has
planned events into the fall. Give Chairman Terry Kiel
(also a Board Director) a call if patents, copyrights,
trademarks and the like are of interest to you. Meet
other IP paralegals and share your expertise.
The CLA REVIEW COURSE will be starting this
month. Becoming a CLA could be the single biggest
career boost you can make. It was for me. See this
issue for details and make the commitment this
year to get those initials behind your name.
RETRACTION: In our May Reporter we printed an
article about pro bono opportunities with the Legal
Aid Foundation of Los Angeles (LAFLA). According
to the volunteer coordinator, David Ackerly, LAFLA
doesn’t use paralegal volunteers. LAPA’s apologies
go to David and to those of you who have called to
offer your time. Please check the pro bono page at
www.lapa.org for other volunteer venues. 4 LAPA JUNE 2007 / VOLUME 35 / ISSUE 06
with those that were just entering the field - and all
learned about some of the benefits of membership
to LAPA. There were even a few paralegals that
joined LAPA on the spot! Ideas and suggestions
were shared about topics for future South Bay
MCLE seminars - so watch your calendars. To end
the evening on an even higher note, Henjum
Goucher gave away numerous door prizes and half
the place walked away with their hands full of
awesome goodies.
Thank you Melissa Card and Henjum Goucher for
kicking off the South Bay Section, in a big way! M E E T I N G S U M M A R Y - continued from page 2
the Olympic Collection. The next committee meeting
is scheduled for May 3, 2007.
• South Bay – Denise Sierra informed the Board that
the social/networking gathering sponsored by
Henjum Goucher Litigation Services at the Torrance
Hilton on April 26, 2007 was a success. Two
members joined LAPA from this event. Denise
stated that other similar event will be scheduled
for Downtown, West Los Angeles, or Century City.
She added that a meeting to discuss future events
is slated for June or July.
• CLA – Kathleen Rosenstock announced that the
schedule is set for the CLA review courses and
that the contract with National University has been
signed. Kathleen stated that she still needed volunteers
who are CLA’s to be an instructors for a couple of
the classes. The classes are scheduled to begin on
June 7, 2007 at National University.
• Corporate – Jane Gately announced that the breakfast
seminar hosted by TCW on LLC vs. Corporate
Formation is scheduled for May 19, 2007. Special
Counsel is the sponsor.
• Pro Bono – Maria Bravo announced that Housing
Rights Center was added to the website.
• Newsletter Committee Report – Mary Theroux
informed the Board that with regard to copyright
issues, that in case where the underlying copyright
in an article is owned by the author of that article,
LAPA may reprint/publish the article with permission
from the author, but does not need to get permission
from the owners of the publication where the article
continued on page 19
NALA NEWS
NALA’s
LEAP Program
• How the structure of NALA, the boards, members
and volunteer leaders work together to further the
mission of NALA.
by Bobby T. Rimas, NALA Liaison
Participation in LEAP will enhance the leadership
1
skills of individual members.” The LEAP program
is greatly beneficial for those seeking to hold elected
national leadership positions within NALA and
provides opportunities to build leadership skills that
can be utilized on a national level. Participants will
obtain “hands-on” experience with active volunteers
to achieve various goals and objectives. By obtaining
such leadership skills, one can better assist and
direct the work of NALA.
The National Association of
Legal Assistant’s (“NALA”)
Leadership, Enhancement and
Preparation (“LEAP”) program is one of several
great NALA membership benefits. “Specific LEAP
objectives include cultivating an understanding of
the following:
• Responsibilities and roles of the Board of Directors
and the professional staff.
• The committee structure of NALA.
• The responsibilities and roles of the NALA
Certifying Boards.
• Products and services of NALA.
• Ethical considerations which may confront board
members; recognize and assess situations where
ethical guidelines must be followed.
To be a LEAP participant, a current NALA member
must “hold a current CLA/CP credential, experience
volunteering in local or state paralegal associations
and/or community non-profit organizations, and
2
(attend) the 2007 and 2008 NALA conventions.”
NALA’s 2007 Annual Convention will commence on
July 11, 2007 in New Orleans. For more detailed
information regarding NALA’s LEAP program or the
continued on page 10
VOLUME 35 / ISSUE 06 / JUNE 2007 LAPA
5
CAPA CORNER
by A. E. Maersch, CAPA Primary
It’s already June and a busy month is ahead. First,
June 22nd has been proclaimed California Paralegal
Day and June 23rd is CAPA’s 19th Annual Educational
Conference, followed on Sunday by CAPA Board’s
second meeting for the year. As promised, here are
some of the notes and overview of the Board of
Directors meeting held February 3rd and 4th of 2007.
Immigration law section. Their target is to have it
available at the June Conference.
The Website Committee is working on updating certain
informational pages as determined by their meeting
with Jon Montgomery, a past CAPA President and
the person who responds to the general questions
sent to the CAPA website.
As each Committee for the upcoming year was now
appointed with new chairs and members, they quickly
met to move their respective committee projects
further or set forth goals for the year ahead. Here are
some of the Committees and their information:
The Benefits Committee is actively seeking additional
benefits for the Alliance’s Member Associations.
They are assessing services versus a purchasing
opportunity as possible new benefits. Be sure to
check on page 23 of the Reporter for your current
benefits available through CAPA.
Outreach Committee comprised of the Officers of
the Alliance who schedule convenient opportunities
for each of them to attend local Member
Association events and provide a face for CAPA to
that local legal community.
The Centralized Records Retention Committee is
working on a feasibility report to determine if the
Alliance should pursue a proposed project related to
storage of a paralegal’s continuing education units.
The Committee charged with updating the Handbook
of Paralegal Utilization. They are progressively working
on updating the Handbook and including a new
6 LAPA JUNE 2007 / VOLUME 35 / ISSUE 06
Next, reports were provided from the Bar Liaisons
for certain practice sections of the State Bar. The
Liaisons are positioned to get a better understanding
continued on page 19
F E AT U R E A RT I C L E
Paralegal Ethics
We Walk a Thin Line...
a Tight Tightrope
by Susan Daugherty (Reprinted with permission from
The National Federation of Paralegal, Associations, Inc.,
www.paralegals.org)
I was accused of UPL ... I couldn’t believe my eyes.
There I was, reading through documents my husband
received from his ex’s attorney. My husband was
appearing pro se, and, lo and behold ... a request to
the court to prohibit him from “using the services of
a paralegal.” It continued with broad-based, but
serious, allegations against me and cited the state’s
statute and (mis)cited the state’s supreme court
opinions prohibiting paralegals from engaging in the
unauthorized practice of law.
I was mortified ... amazed ... and absolutely livid!
Worse yet, in my very conservative state, I was afraid
that these allegations could actually result in criminal
prosecution, imprisonment, and fines, ending my career.
So, why am I telling you about this embarrassment?
The way I figure it, many paralegals face the same
possibility at some time in their career. After all,
even while we are still in school, people begin asking
us about how to proceed in their legal matters ... off
the record, of course.
Do we respond off the record? Or, do we reply that we
cannot answer because to do so would be engaging
in the unauthorized practice of law, which is
prohibited by law. What a pious thought ... albeit
the right response. I’m willing to bet that most readers
among us have given some form of well-intentioned
and seemingly innocent legal advice to Mom, Dad,
Sis or a dear friend. And, giving legal advice is UPL.
Does that mean we’ve broken the law?
The NFPA Model Code of Ethics and Professional
Responsibility and Guidelines for Disciplinary
Enforcement states at EC-1.8, “A paralegal shall
not engage in the unauthorized practice of law” and
further, “A paralegal shall comply with the applicable
legal authority governing the unauthorized practice of
law in the jurisdiction in which the paralegal practices.”
NFPA’s research reveals that, generally, the practice
of law is defined as giving legal advice, signing legal
documents, appearing in court or before other
tribunals on behalf of another (except where
permitted by statute, rule, regulation or opinion) and
setting, negotiating or accepting fees for legal services.
If Mom and Dad are about to lose their house
because an improper judgment was obtained
against them ... or Little Sister gets an offer to settle
her fender bender for just the property damage ... or
Greatgrandpa passes on with only a few dollars and
no will ... what’s really prohibited when it comes to
helping with legal matters that affect us personally?
What’s the likelihood of off-the-record advice given
to a close family member coming back to haunt us?
Where should we draw the line?
continued on page 8
Advance your career at Lapa.org’s online Career Center
I’m looking for qualified legal
professionals to add to my staff.
I’m looking for a new position.
Search jobs (3,000+)
Post your resume
Post Jobs
Search resumes (13,000+)
Get connected at:
Powered by the:
Legal Career Center Network
www.lapa.org
VOLUME 35 / ISSUE 06 / JUNE 2007 LAPA
7
F E A T U R E A R T I C L E - continued from page 7
If we literally interpret statutes and opinions
prohibiting the unauthorized practice of law, we
cannot advise anyone, even a spouse, about his or
her legal rights, obligations or responsibilities. With
that being said, we can suggest who friends or
relatives might contact with a legal problem, but we
cannot make calls to courts and other agencies to
request information on their behalf. We can help
friends or relatives to type a legal document, but we
may not tell them which forms they need to use to
pursue or respond to a legal problem. Oh, and be
careful about charging fees -- fees just seem to raise
those UPL demons every time.
The biggest dilemma comes over morning coffee or
across the dinner table, discussing a legal matter
with a loved one. Obviously, we can always represent
ourselves -- anybody can, regardless of whether he
or she has legal knowledge and/or training.
We also can refer anyone to an attorney; we can even
call the attorney to make an introduction for our
friend. We could even tell our friend to take to an
initial meeting with the attorney certain paperwork
that the attorney will need.
But how about friends or relatives asking for more
because they want to proceed, pro se -- without an
attorney -- and represent themselves? Even if the
person swears not to tell, the hardest thing to realize
is that by giving an opinion, a/k/a advice, we could
be hurting them.
We have to be very careful to ensure that we do not give
advice that could affect their rights, obligations, or
responsibilities. Plain and simple -- we have to tell
them that we just can’t help them. Suppose that
they follow something we say and it is wrong, or they
interpret our advice wrongly. Or, suppose that we
don’t know all the facts when we respond, or we
don’t know all the laws that might apply to their
particular set of circumstances. We do not want to take
the chance that we limit their legal options or recourse.
To confuse matters even more, each state interprets
UPL differently. Much depends on the tasks performed
or assistance rendered. Supposedly, clerical tasks
aren’t UPL, but try telling a court that you did not
assist in phrasing the information on a form when
you are the relative of the informed pro se party. Try
explaining how your relative cited the appropriate
continued on page 21
8 LAPA JUNE 2007 / VOLUME 35 / ISSUE 06
STUDENT’S PERSPECTIVE
Got Network?
by Jenifer Smith
For many of us paralegal students
who are currently enrolled in a
paralegal program, or have just
graduated, we are often overwhelmed with what we can do
with this degree. There are countless questions, such
as how do we get a job without legal experience?
How should one dress for the interview? What size
firm would be best for me? What should my résumé
look like? As a paralegal student graduating next month
from Cuyamaca College with no legal experience, I
had the opportunity to go to the 2007 Los Angeles
Paralegal Association’s Spring Career Conference.
This was my first event that I had attended as a
paralegal student and it will certainly not be my last.
When I first walked into the conference room, I was
amazed at how many people were there. As I
grabbed the first table I saw with no one sitting
there, I started to look over the program of events
and could hardly wait for the presentations to start.
Sitting behind me at a table were three women who
were discussing the same questions that I had. I
asked if I could join them, we all started talking and
shortly after, we exchanged email addresses. Indeed
it did not take long before the friendly environment
put me more at ease.
Soon it was time to get down to business, which
meant handing out my résumé and speaking with
the recruiters of the various legal temp agencies
present at the conference. Even with the comfort
found in the camaraderie with my peers, I still
found myself a little nervous, after all what was I
going to say? What would they think of my résumé?
Would I be prepared for the questions they might
ask me? Despite being skeptical of what I could
offer and filled with the fear of the rejection, I got
up from my seat and went over to the recruiter
tables. However, to my surprise I received positive
feedback. They all seemed interested in me and
liked my résumé; some even said they could place
me immediately. I thought that I was dreaming:
How could they place someone like me, fresh out of
school with no legal experience? These answers would
soon come to me by way of a panel of paralegals
and recruiters. The advice was highly invaluable and
set my doubts at ease.
Here are some things I found to be of great insight
and information to all paralegal students.
Q: What do you look for when hiring for an entry
level position?
A: Recruiter Panel- For hiring individuals for large
firms, we look for an ABA-approved certificate/degree
and BA degree. For smaller firms an ABA-approved
certificate/degree or experience could compensate
for a degree. Stability and consistency in your résumé
is essential, being able to articulate what’s written
in your résumé, being flexible in your schedule
and salary, and knowing what you want to do, but
still being able to be flexible.
Paralegal Panel- Positive attitude, terrific work
ethic, professionalism, flexibility, writing skills and
interpersonal skills. Also, becoming a notary will
help set you apart in getting the job you want.
Q: What are some of the HOT areas on the rise?
A: Recruiter/Paralegal Panel- Corporate and IP
Litigation.
Q: What are some of the things that you could do to
advance your career as a paralegal?
A: Paralegal Panel- Demonstrate a strong work ethic,
attend all the training you can on applicable
technology, join organizations/network and volunteer
for different projects.
Q: What are some resources you should use to find
a job?
A: Recruiter/Paralegal Panel- NETWORKING is
paramount. Write a list of all the people you know
in the legal community; have a good résumé/cover
letter; join organizations; talk to classmates who
work in the law offices; utilize Martindale Hubbell
legal directory for information on firms; get names
of personnel who do the direct hiring for the
paralegals in different firms; talk to recruiters.
Build relationships-don’t just get the business
card, go up to the person and talk with them and
don’t forget about your professors in school. Also,
knowing where you want to be and where you
want to go helps.
continued on page 10
VOLUME 35 / ISSUE 06 / JUNE 2007 LAPA
9
S T U D E N T ’ S P E R S P E C T I V E - continued from page 9
Q: What is the best advice that you can give for
someone starting out in this field?
A: Recruiter Panel- Be knowledgeable and continue
your education. Keep growing and expanding
your horizon: CLA Exams— getting specialization
for this will keep you marketable. Volunteer
whenever possible and pick up extra projects.
Bottom-line... have a passion to learn.
Paralegal Panel- Once again networking is essential.
Be open to new possibilities, take advantage of
training offered, be a team player, volunteer,
cross-train, be a problem solver, show initiative,
be pro-active, increase technical skills, network
on a broader scale not just local. And don’t do a
good job, do the BEST job that you can do.
This event taught me a lot. First and foremost, it
helped me understand how valuable networking is,
because sometimes it is not what you know but who
you know. Indeed, some companies tend to go by
word-of-mouth referrals first before they look
through the piles of résumés. Thus, if you are to
take nothing else from all this advice, it should be
the importance of networking. Through networking
alone I have already received a few job offers without
having experience before they have posted the jobs
10 LAPA JUNE 2007 / VOLUME 35 / ISSUE 06
publicly for others to apply. So getting out and
attending different events/workshops and seminars
definitely increases your chance of getting your foot
in the door to the job that you want. I also learned
to use all my resources. Don’t place your job search
in someone else’s hands. Ask yourself every day,
“What am I doing day to day to help me get into this
field?” With a professional and personable attitude
you can market yourself and acquire other skills that
you may be able to bring to the job you are seeking.
Jenifer Smith is a paralegal student at Cuyamaca College in San Diego, CA
and graduates with her paralegal degree in May 2007. She is also the student
liaison for the Cuyamaca Association of Paralegal Students and has been a
student member of the San Diego Paralegal Association for one year. In addition,
she has been on active duty with the United States Navy for 6 years. N A L A N E W S - continued from page 5
upcoming NALA Annual Convention, please visit
NALA’s website, www.nala.org.
Notes:
1. From the NALA website, www.nala.org
2. From the NALA website, www.nala.org
Bobby T. Rimas is a paralegal who specializes in immigration and employment
matters. He currently serves in the capacities of LAPA Vice President of
Marketing and Planning and LAPA’s NALA Liaison. He can be reached at
[email protected] or via cell phone at (213) 952-9914. PEANUT GALLERY
A monthly column where sponsors and/or vendors share helpful hints.
Make your Resume
Work for You!
by Cherisse Heidi A. Cleofe
In the brief time potential employers have to review
resumes, it is essential for your resume to outshine
the rest. The key is to be succinct but substantive,
confident but not overconfident and, most importantly,
your resume should be an honest representation of
your work. Here are a few things to keep in mind:
1. Formatting and Fonts – Keep your formatting and
fonts simple. The overall visual presentation of your
resume makes a huge difference. Be sure to double
check that everything lines-up accordingly.
Complicated formatting and “fancy” font can be
distracting, and will take away from what you are
trying to convey.
2. Spelling/Grammar – Spell check only takes a few
minutes (if at all). Please use it. You must be sure
to re-read your resume to catch any quick grammar
errors. Careless errors that can be easily rectified are
inexcusable!
3. The One Page Rule – It is best to keep in mind
that the second page (and subsequent pages) of a
resume must be earned. Only in the instance of
substantial experience should your resume go
beyond the first page.
4. Experience Description – This is your chance to
highlight all the important details of your day to day
activities that make you and your experience
remarkable. What documents do you handle? Do
you review or draft these documents? What kind of
cases do you handle? How involved are you in the
process? What is the nature of your client interaction?
Your resume should elicit as few questions as possible.
5. Important Information – You deserve everything
you’ve earned, so be sure to note your
education/degrees and certification(s) on your
resume. Also, with the paramount importance of
software skills in the legal industry, it is essential
that you include your software proficiencies.
A good resume is vital. It is of utmost importance
that you regard your resume with the proper attention
required for you to put your best foot forward. A
continued on page 20
VOLUME 35 / ISSUE 06 / JUNE 2007 LAPA
11
F E A T U R E A R T I C L E - continued from page 1
What Is A “Paralegal?”
Sometimes employers designate employees
performing particular duties as “paralegals” or
“legal assistants.” No matter what term an employer
may use, the occupation – at least, in California –
has a single, statutory definition whose contours
can have a significant impact on legal employers.
Under California Business & Professions Code section
6450(a), a paralegal is one who, “qualified by education,
training or work experience,” works for “an attorney,
law firm, corporation” or other organization, and
“who performs substantial legal work under the
direction and supervision of an active member of
the State Bar of California.” The statute sets forth a
number of typical and permissible paralegal duties.
Before the state legislature revised the definition,
individuals could present themselves as paralegals
after fulfilling minimal educational requirements.
Section 6450(a) augmented and codified the
requirements. Under California law (with the exception
of state employees), the following are acceptable
paths for the paralegal career:
• Completion of a paralegal program approved by
the American Bar Association or completion of 24
semester units in law-related courses from an
approved post-secondary institution; or
• A bachelor’s or advanced degree in any subject,
with one year of law-related experience and a
supporting declaration from a supervising attorney
who has three years of active membership in the
state bar; or
• A high school or equivalent diploma, with three
years of law-related experience (if completed
before December 31, 2003) and a supporting
declaration from a supervising attorney who has
three years of active membership in the state bar.
Work experience in a law firm is now an insufficient
qualification on its own for becoming a paralegal.
Unless an employee completed three years of
experience before 2004, California law requires
graduation from a university or qualified paralegal
program to be considered a paralegal.
There are a number of reasons why the definition is
important. First, Business & Professions Code section
12 LAPA JUNE 2007 / VOLUME 35 / ISSUE 06
6452 makes it unlawful to hold oneself out as a
“paralegal” if the minimum requirements outlined
above are not met. Significantly for employers, the
Code puts the burden – that is, the “liabil[ity] for
any harm caused as the result of the paralegal’s
negligence, misconduct, or violation of this chapter”
– on the supervising attorneys.
It is not difficult to imagine how the paralegal statutes
can operate to the detriment of the supervising
attorney. Consider a legal malpractice case where
the attorney portrayed an employee as a “paralegal”
to the client. Now consider that the employee did not
actually meet these minimum statutory requirements,
and the acts or omissions of this employee actually
caused the client’s harm. The fact that an attorney
defending against malpractice cannot demonstrate
that he or she even bothered to assure that a
paralegal meet the minimum requirements under the
California Business & Professions Code will likely be
damaging evidence in the malpractice case.
In cases in which a prevailing party can recover fees
and costs but faces a motion from opposing counsel
concerning the reasonableness of the billings of a
paralegal who lacks the statutory qualifications. The
attorney’s disregard for the basic legal mandate
regarding the requirements for an employee qualifying
as a paralegal would be a significant factor in this
situation as well.
The paralegal definition also matters because the
California statute establishes legal consequences
for noncompliance, and again, the supervising attorney
bears the ultimate responsibility. The first line of
enforcement is a cause of action that permits a
“consumer” of legal services to sue either the
paralegal or supervising attorney for restitution,
damages and even attorney’s fees for any violation
of the paralegal statutes. Second, the Code makes it
a crime to hold oneself out improperly as a “paralegal”
or for a paralegal to provide legal services to clients,
except for those services enumerated in the statute.
If there is a violation, then the paralegal and
supervising attorney can both be found “guilty of an
infraction for the first violation,” and “guilty of a
misdemeanor for . . . each subsequent violation.” By
law, the penalties include fines and even imprisonment.
continued on page 14
VOLUME 35 / ISSUE 06 / JUNE 2007 LAPA
13
F E A T U R E A R T I C L E - continued from page 12
Back To School: More Statutory Requirements
Regarding Education
All paralegals are subject to a continuing education
requirement. This requirement is distinct from any
educational mandate that paralegal trade associations
may establish for their continued membership. Under
California Business & Professions Code section 6450(a),
all paralegals must certify to a supervising attorney
their completion of four hours of ethics courses
every three years, as well as four hours of legal training
every two years. Supervising attorneys should again
remember that they bear the liability for their
paralegals’ negligence or statutory violations. Also, a
supervising attorney should have concerns about
what might happen in a malpractice case if the
paralegal’s action (or inaction) somehow contributed
to the client’s injury, and the attorney failed to
require the paralegal to take continuing education
courses or meet other requirements of the statute.
Prior to this most recent pronouncement, on
December 16, 2005, the DOL issued an even more
instructive Opinion Letter. In that Opinion Letter,
the DOL addressed whether an employer can
consider its paralegals as falling within either the
“professional” or “administrative” exemption to federal
wage laws, and therefore “exempt” for purposes of
entitlement to overtime pay. The DOL affirmed its
prior opinions that state that, with few exceptions,
paralegals are not exempt employees and must
receive overtime wages.
While this was not the first or even the last DOL
Opinion Letter addressing this occupation, the
Opinion Letter firmly sets forth the DOL’s position
on non-exempt status since the late 2004 revisions
to the DOL regulations that address exemptions.
This Opinion Letter is a thorough reaffirmation of
continued on page 16
Attorneys should also bear in mind that failure to
adequately supervise employees, including paralegals,
can subject them to bar discipline. Especially if a client
suffers, an attorney’s disregard for a paralegal’s continuing
education requirement could constitute inadequate
supervision and a violation of the ethical rules.
THANK YOU!
In sum, attorneys need to encourage and require
their paralegals to meet the statutory mandate for
continuing education.
Abraham Lincoln University
Adams & Martin Group
Concord Document Service
Davidson Legal Staffing
Deadlines on Demand
First American Corporation
Henjum Goucher
HIRE Counsel
Kelly Law Registry
Kernow Partners LLC
Large Screen Displays
Legal Option Group
Legal Staff
Matura Farrington
Parasec
Providius
Robert Half Legal
Safe Data
Special Counsel
Paralegals & Employment Laws
Aside from the statutory definition and education
requirements, law firms and other legal departments
should take note of employment laws affecting paralegals.
A. Overtime & Exempt Status
As recently as July 24, 2006, the federal Department
of Labor (“DOL”) singled out the paralegal occupation
for review as to the issue of compliance with state
overtime wages and other wage laws. The DOL’s
California counterpart, the Division of Labor
Standards Enforcement, has not issued a similar
pronouncement with respect to paralegals. But
because California employers must comply with
both state and federal law, those who hire paralegals
should pay close attention to the federal issuance,
which ruled that a paralegal in a corporate legal
department was indeed a non-exempt employee.
14 LAPA JUNE 2007 / VOLUME 35 / ISSUE 06
To All of Our Spring Career
Conference Exhibitors
VOLUME 35 / ISSUE 06 / JUNE 2007 LAPA
15
F E A T U R E A R T I C L E - continued from page 14
the DOL’s longstanding position on the non-exempt
status of this vocation, in light of the new regulations.
Attorneys should make sure that they comply with
federal (and state) wage laws or risk claims for back
wages, meal and rest period violations and for premium
pay for failure to comply with these laws. Legal
employers who question whether employees would
actually pursue such claims need only look at the
local court’s docket sheet to uncover the numerous
class actions filed daily against employers in a cross
section of industries seeking recovery based on
these same claims.
The specifics of the Opinion Letter are as follows: a
law firm wrote to the DOL requesting its stance on
the firm’s classification of its six paralegals, who
had differing levels of education but all of whom
had significant client responsibility such that the
law firm billed out their work to its clients. The firm
asked whether the employees could fall within the
“professional” or “administrative” overtime exemption,
meaning that firm need not comply with wage laws
such as payment of overtime.
The DOL rejected any attempt to deem paralegals as
falling within the “professional” or “administrative”
exemption. As for the professional exemption, the
DOL noted that the paralegal position fails the
exemption’s “primary duty” test. This signifies that,
to fall within professional exemption for purposes of
wage law compliance, the position must require
advanced knowledge in a field of “science or learning,”
that comes from specialized instruction. According
to the Opinion Letter, which cited the federal
regulations, the paralegal profession does not meet
these requirements because “an advanced specialized
academic degree is not a standard prerequisite for
entry into the field.” Instead, even though many
paralegals hold a bachelor’s degree, the standard for
paralegal jobs is two years of college instruction.
Furthermore, as for the administrative exemption,
the DOL ruled that, although paralegals perform
non-manual work, they fail to meet the exemption
because they do not exercise “discretion and
independent judgment with respect to matters of
significance.” Instead, their work involves “the use of
skills rather than discretion and independent judgment.”
The exceptions to non-exempt status are few.
Exempt status may arise if a paralegal “possesses
an advanced specialized degree in other professional
fields, applies advanced knowledge in that field to
the performance of his or her primary duty.” For
example, if an employee who is a “paralegal”
provides significant scientific advice to a patent
prosecution department, the employer should
scrutinize the paralegal’s educational background
and actual duties; if the employee qualifies as a
“professional,” and therefore exempt, the employer
need not pay overtime. Also, a paralegal who has
risen the corporate ladder to management could fall
within an altogether separate exclusion, the executive
exemption, and thus not be entitled to overtime.
Employers with questions on these legal gray areas
should seek advice of an employment lawyer.
B. Anti-Discrimination Laws
A survey by the National Federation of Paralegal
Associations demonstrated that, in 2003, the average
age of a paralegal was 40 years old. This is, of course,
the age that triggers liability for age discrimination
under the federal Age Discrimination in Employment
Act, as well as the safeguards that relate to the
execution of a valid release by, and the provision of
employee benefits to, over-40 workers under the
Older Workers’ Benefit Protections Act.
Employers should be aware of these laws when taking
employment actions that that may have a disparate
effect on legally protected categories. For example,
if a law firm or legal department decides it has to
downsize its support staff, it should avoid lay-offs
carried out on the basis of salary. This is particularly
true in California, given that use of salary as the
basis for deciding which employees to terminate
can constitute age discrimination “if use of that
criterion adversely impacts older workers as a group.”
Consequences for discrimination within a law practice
go beyond legal penalties. Aside from the legal
ramifications, discrimination (based on race, national
origin, sex, sexual orientation, religion, age or disability)
that occurs within the law firm or legal department
can subject supervising attorneys to bar discipline.
C. Employee Benefits
Another issue attorneys may face in connection with
16 LAPA JUNE 2007 / VOLUME 35 / ISSUE 06
continued on page 17
F E A T U R E A R T I C L E - continued from page 16
their paralegals concerns the “other side” of
employment law, that is, employee benefits. Law
firms and legal departments must consider the tax
consequences when they decide to pay for their
paralegals’ mandatory continuing education courses.
The same issue arises for those generous employers
who pay for their paralegals to attend law school.
While the relevant laws are not unique to paralegals,
some legal employers are in the dark about providing
these benefits in a way that is most tax-efficient to
the employee and the employer.
employer’s providing this type of benefits.
Employers may devote considerable resources to
consulting outside counsel for advice on a repayment
agreement for a paralegal seeking law school tuition
assistance, only to discover that the seemingly
faithful employee had changed his or her mind
about law school -- and working for the employer.
Frank, on-going discussion between the employer
and deserving employee is necessary in deciding
whether such benefits make sense.
Under the tax code, a legal employer can pay for a
paralegal’s continuing education courses on a tax-free
basis if an employee could deduct the course as a
trade or business expense (under 26 U.S.C. section
162) if the employee had paid for it. The tax code
considers this benefit a “working condition fringe”
to the employee, who can exclude the employer’s
benevolent act from gross income. The employer
can also deduct the payment from taxable income
as an “ordinary and necessary” business expense
under 26 U.S.C. section 162.
As a practical matter, paralegals frequently confront
confidential client information. They also come across
the musings of their supervising attorneys, and they
document some of their own. Although never
considered a slam-dunk, courts tend to extend the
attorney-client privilege and work-product protection
to paralegals. In California, state statute buttresses
the protection of client confidences.
Providing financial aid for law school tuition, on the
other hand, is very different, and for purposes of tax
laws, is not considered a “fringe” benefit. For a
legal assistant lucky enough to receive tuition aid
for law school from their employer, the paralegal’s
resulting profession as an attorney would constitute
a “new trade or business” under the tax laws.
Because of this classification, an employee could
not deduct the tuition expenses from his or her own
taxes, and so the employer cannot provide the benefit
under Section 132 on a tax-free basis. The legal
employer can, however, provide the benefit without
subjecting the employee to tax consequences, if it
funds the education through an “educational assistance
program,” as defined in tax code. This type of program
has many limitations, including an annual maximum
benefit amount of $5,250. Despite the vast
expense, providing the perk is considered “ordinary
and necessary,” and the employer can deduct it
from its taxable income.
While addressing the tax consequences of paying
for a paralegal’s education, a legal employer should
examine the question of whether the employment
relationship is one that will be enhanced by the
Privilege & Protection
A. Attorney-Client Privilege
Under the California Business & Professions Code
section 6453, “[a] paralegal is subject to the same
duty as an attorney . . . to preserve the attorneyclient privilege,” codified in California Evidence
Code section 954.
One California case, entitled In re Complex
Asbestos Litigation, addressed the privilege issue at
length. There, a plaintiff’s firm appealed an order
disqualifying it from multiple personal injury asbestos
cases given that its paralegal had previously worked
with the opposing counsel on the pending litigation.
Soon after joining the plaintiff firm, the paralegal
served a subpoena on an asbestos contractor, and
the company contacted its defense attorney, who
then successfully disqualified the plaintiff firm from
the litigation.
On review, the appellate court approved of the
disqualification in cases on which the paralegal
worked, given that the previous firm did not provide
consent, nor did the new firm attempt to construct
an ethical wall around the new employee. The court
indicated that either may have sufficed to prevent
the disqualification. In so ruling, the court noted
that the employee’s conduct affected attorney-client
continued on page 18
VOLUME 35 / ISSUE 06 / JUNE 2007 LAPA
17
Celebrate
California
Paralegal
Day
Your
Day!
Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger has proclaimed
FRIDAY, JUNE 22, 2007
In our rapidly evolving legal system, the responsibilities of California’s
paralegals are constantly growing and expanding. So take
a moment to reflect on your past accomplishments, consider
your future goals, and celebrate your day.
F E A T U R E A R T I C L E - continued from page 17
confidentiality, and that, as the employer, the attorney
is accountable for the paralegal’s acts.
B. Work-Product Protection
Attorneys certainly know that the investigative work
they perform for a pending lawsuit is protected from
disclosure to opposing counsel under the attorney-work
product doctrine. The California civil procedure
rules codify this basic tenet of confidentiality. Is the
work of paralegals afforded similar protection? The
procedural rules are silent on this issue. But
California courts have indicated that there is indeed
protection for the work performed by a paralegal.
The federal counterpart to the state statute makes
explicit that the work-production protection covers
an attorney’s “agent” in federal court proceedings.
In any event, to ensure adequate protection from
disclosure, corporations, firms and other organizations
should make sure that the paralegal’s work is
investigative in nature and is requested (even if
generally) by the supervising attorney.
Unauthorized Practice Of Law (“UPL”)
Because of their profound connection to the practice
of law and because many attorneys rely so heavily
on them, legal assistants may come dangerously
close to violating UPL statutes. Indeed, a legal issue
that attorneys quite often reference in regard to
paralegals is unauthorized legal practice.
The California Business & Professions Code section
6126 makes it a crime for anyone to practice law
without a license. Attorneys need to be aware of this
proscription because, as set forth above, they are
liable for the unauthorized practice of law of their
paralegals. Furthermore, the California Rules of
Professional Conduct specifically prohibit lawyers
from aiding their paralegals in unauthorized practice.
18 LAPA NOVEMBER 2005 / VOLUME 33 / ISSUE 11
But aside from UPL, the California Business &
Professions Code sets forth acts that paralegals
must not perform. While some of these prohibited
acts are patently unacceptable (and often constitute
UPL violations as well), the impropriety of other acts
is not as apparent. Under California Business &
Professions Code section 6450(b), paralegals must not:
• Provide legal advice;
• Represent clients in court (although they may
appear at some administrative hearings);
continued on page 19
L E T T E R F R O M T H E E D I T O R - cont. from page 3
and awe, a ten foot Genie emerged in a great cloud
of blue green smoke.
The Genie announced, “In gratitude of your freeing
me from the lamp, I grant you three wishes. As there
are three of you, you each get one wish to make.”
The paralegal blurts out, “I want to be in the Barbados,
sipping cocktails with a gorgeous movie star.” Poof!
The paralegal was gone.
The associate, excited by the events, stammers, “I
want to be in Hawaii, relaxing on the beach with a
professional hula dancer on one side and a Mai Tai
on the other.” Poof! The associate was gone.
“You’re last,” the Genie says to the partner, “What
is your wish?”
The partner replied, “That’s easy…I want those two
back in the office after lunch!” Poof!
Proof positive gang…we are needed by our employers,
though perhaps not always appreciated.
That being said dear members, have a safe and sane
Paralegal Day, wherever the occasion may take you.
In the meantime, I think I hear my boss calling!!! C A P A C O R N E R - continued from page 6
of what each Section is offering and provide a
statewide voice for paralegals. Currently the
Liaisons participate in the Solo Practice and Small
Firms Section (C. Yellis - OCPA), the Litigation
Section (R. Reid - LAPA), the Law Practice
Management and Technology Section (K. Ellis LAPA) and the Public Law Section (M. Tice - VCPA).
CAPA is currently investigating if it should send a
liaison to the Intellectual Property Section.
CAPA’s RECAP Editor has put the Spring edition to
bed. Once released, we will be able to let you know
when its been posted for Members on LAPA’s
website… see what’s happening with the profession
on a statewide platform and what’s new and available
at paralegal associations through out the state.
If you attended the Spring Career Conference, each
attendee had a chance to participate in a drawing
for a complimentary registration to the upcoming
CAPA Conference and the lucky winner has been
notified. It will be a great day in the Harbor Island
area of San Diego to participate in a full day of law
related seminars, an opportunity to meet your ethics
requirement, listen to some great speakers, meet
some of the Service Providers that can become a part
of your busy day and of course, meet with colleagues
through out the State of California, all great resources
for any paralegal.
So, don’t forget to register on line with CAPA for
“Sailing Towards Educational Success” held
Saturday, June 23rd at the Hilton San Diego
Airport/Harbor Island and hosted by San Diego
Paralegal Association (SDPA). A full color
Conference brochure is available at CAPA’s website
www.CAPAralegal.org and at www.lapa.org.
The latest….get your raffle tickets, more prizes
added weekly. We have been informed that the hotel
room block has been released, so if you need
accommodations, we may have some suggestions.
Be sure to check soon as the location is a popular
summer destination and a great way to relax after
the event.
Remember to check out CAPA’s website for
additional information or call any of your CAPA
Representatives, we are listed on page 23 of the
Reporter. See you on the 23rd! M E E T I N G S U M M A R Y - continued from page 4
was originally discovered, provided LAPA uses only
the text from the article and not any portion of the
article that can be attributed to any prior publisher
of the article. It was noted that the articles in the
newsletter have been substantive and high quality,
which has allowed the newsletter committee to
increase the number of pages.
• School Reports – Donna Reznick-Goodich reported
that she spoke to the paralegal class at UCLA on
April 23, 2007. She was given a speaker gift
afterward which was a “portable executive desk,”
which she passed around to the Board members.
The Board discussed that this type of gift would be
nice for LAPA to consider giving the speakers at the
October conference. Rhonda Reid reported that she
spoke to the paralegal class at the College of the
Canyons in Valencia to provide them with information
about LAPA and membership benefits. She also
provided them with newsletters and information
regarding the upcoming LAPA events/seminars.
Events and Projects
• October Conference – Bobby Rimas announced that
the next October planning conference meeting would
be held at Morrison & Foerster LLP on May 10, 2007.
• Holiday Benefit Gala – A summary was provided to
continued on page 21
F E A T U R E A R T I C L E - continued from page 18
• Draft, explain or advise the use of any legal document
to anyone other than a supervising attorney;
• Establish the rates that a law firm charges to
clients for the services performed;
• Agree to perform paralegal services under anyone
other than an attorney.
• Induce anyone to make an investment, purchase a
financial product or service, or enter a transaction
from which income or profit may be derived by the
paralegal.
Legal employers need to make themselves aware of
the laws and rules that address and affect the
employment of paralegals. These laws are not
burdensome, and compliance with them will likely
improve the practice of law for supervising attorneys,
and at the same time, advance the occupation of
continued on page 20
these valued employees.
VOLUME 35 / ISSUE 06 / JUNE 2007 LAPA
19
F E A T U R E A R T I C L E - continued from page 19
1 Ms. Llaurado is an attorney who practices labor and employment law
exclusively at the Los Angeles office of Sedgwick, Detert, Moran & Arnold, LLP.
She may be reached via e-mail at [email protected].
2 2003 Paralegal Compensation and Benefits Report, Executive Summary
(2003) (available at www.paralegals.org).
3 Business & Professions Code § 6452(b) (emphasis added); cf. Hu v. Fang,
104 Cal.App.4th 61, 65 (2002) (“The attorney is the professional responsible
for supervising the work of his or her legal assistants,” and thus Code of
Civil Procedure section 473 attributes paralegal errors to the attorney).
4 “[A]wards of attorneys' fees for paralegal time have become commonplace,
largely without protest.” Sundance v. Municipal Ct., 192 Cal.App.3d 268,
274 (1987); see also Citizens Against Rent Control v. City of Berkeley, 181
Cal.App.3d 213, 232 (1986).
5 Business & Professions Code § 6455(a).
6 Business & Professions Code § 6455(b).
7 See Chefsky v. State Bar, 36 Cal.3d 116, 123 (1984); Palomo v. State Bar,
36 Cal.3d 785, 795 (1984); Gassman v. State Bar, 18 Cal.3d 125 (1976).
8 DOL Opinion Letter, FLSA 2006-27 (July 24, 2006).
9 DOL Opinion Letter, FLSA 2005-54 (Dec. 16, 2005).
10 See, e.g., DOL Opinion Letter FLSA 2005-9 (Feb. 4, 2005).
11 See Opinion Letter FLSA 2005-54 at 1 (Dec. 16, 2005).
12 Id., at 2-3.
13 Id., at 2.
14 Id., at 3.
15 Id., at 4.
16 Id., at 5.
17 Id. at 3.
18 2003 Paralegal Compensation and Benefits Report, Executive Summary
(2003) (available at www.paralegals.org).
19 29 U.S.C. § 621, et seq. The Older Workers’ Benefit Protections Act amended
the Age Discrimination in Employment Act.
20 Govt. Code § 12941.1.
20 LAPA JUNE 2007 / VOLUME 35 / ISSUE 06
21 See Cal. Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 2-400 (Prohibited
Discriminatory Conduct in a Law Practice).
22 26 U.S.C. § 132.
23 See, e.g., Howard Richard Pedolsky, TC Memo 1982-157 (1982).
24 26 U.S.C. § 127.
25 26 U.S.C. § 162.
26 232 Cal. App. 3d 572 (1991),
27 Id. at 587-88, 597,
28 See Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 2018, et seq.
29 See, e.g., Insurance Co. of North America v. Superior Ct., 108 Cal.App.3d
758 (1980)(memoranda and notes of paralegal not discoverable).
30 Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b).
31 Business & Professions Code § 6452(b).
32 See Cal. Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 1-300 (Unauthorized
Practice of Law). P E A N U T G A L L E R Y - continued from page 11
great resume will undoubtedly open doors for the
advancement of your career.
Best of luck on your search!
Keep an eye out and take advantage of the Resume
Tune-Up at the upcoming LAPA October Conference!
Get directed advice on your resume from professionals
in the know.
Cherisse Heidi A. Cleofe is a Placement Director with SPECIAL COUNSEL, a
recruiting and placement agency with locations throughout the nation. She
can be reached at (213) 620-6620, by Fax at (213) 620-6214, or by e-mail at
[email protected]. F E A T U R E A R T I C L E - continued from page 8
court rule or procedure, even if you handed the
relative your court rules or the relative copied a citation
from something written by the adversarial counsel.
Law librarians aren’t accused of UPL when they
direct a person to the set of statutes or reporters,
but try telling the court that you didn’t show your relative how to find the cases in the statute’s notes and
help your relative to understand the legalese.
We have to draw the line, but where? We can look at the
ABA Model Code of Professional Responsibility, EC 3-5.
It states the practice of law is anything that calls for
the professional judgment of a lawyer and defines
“professional judgment” as “the lawyer’s educated
ability to relate the general body and philosophy of
law to a specific legal problem of a client ...”
Further, we might determine whether something
requires that judgment by looking at the Rule’s
annotation for common tests that determine
whether the activity is the practice of law:
• if it requires legal skill and knowledge of law above
that of the average lay citizen;
• if it constitutes advice, counsel, or services
concerning binding legal rights or remedies of the
client or recipient of the services; and
• if it is one customarily performed or commonly
understood to be performed by lawyers.
Still, all of this is so esoteric! No law or guidance is
going to stop us from wanting to help friends or family
members in need. But the bottom line is this: giving
any advice may result in reducing ... or, worse yet ...
ruining your friends’ or family members’ chances to
pursue all available legal options.
Then they have no other recourse but to blame you.
Just how far a relative, friend or attorney who eventually may be consulted takes that blame depends on
how much they were damaged or how close they are
to you. Worst case scenario? You could be facing a
civil suit for damages as well as charged with UPL,
a criminal offense in many states.
Fortunately for me, in my husband’s case, the
defense counsel’s request was not based in fact or
law; so, with my certification attached to his rebuttal,
the court was convinced that the ex’s request should
be denied. All I had done were clerical tasks -- typing,
delivering and faxing legal documents that he
signed, or arranging for exhibit copying services.
While none of these tasks constituted UPL, even in
my state, the attempt was an incredible ploy to
divert the court’s attention from the real issues
before it. Ironically, defense counsel was unaware of
supreme court activities surrounding paralegals in my
state, so adding that information in the certification
might have helped in my defense. More important
for the paralegal profession as a whole is the fact
that the court’s decision specifically stated that
“the assistance provided to “[a] spouse is not found
to be the unauthorized practice of law.”
No question about it -- we walk a very narrow line
when we are involved personally in legal matters. I
might not have been able to respond if I had not
known the UPL statute and opinions in my state, or
if I had not learned so much from NFPA’s research
on ethics and UPL.
I have exposed my personal embarrassment to help
someone else avoid engaging in UPL. Be careful
when helping friends and family members, no matter
how tempting or easy it is for you. Keep current with
your state’s activities on UPL. If you are the unlucky
target of a UPL allegation, seek information from
NFPA for your sake, and for the sake of all of us.
Susan D. Daugherty is a past president of NFPA and South Jersey Paralegal
Association. She has been a litigation paralegal for 16 years and was selected
for the 1999 Judge William Robie Leadership Award. M E E T I N G S U M M A R Y - continued from page 19
the Board of several non-profit organizations which
had been nominated to be the recipient of the proceeds
from the 2007 Holiday Benefit Gala. An additional
nomination was also submitted. After some discussion
and a vote, the City of Los Angeles Ballet was
chosen to be this year’s beneficiary.
Business
• Heide Maersch distributed the Board Attendance
Policy to each board member for their signatures.
• Donna Reznick-Goodich informed the Board that
the liability insurance policy for LAPA was updated
by the carrier and the Board discussed the need
to review both insurance policies.
• The Board discussed launching MCLE programs
for paralegals online and in a physical class.
• Heide Maersch informed the Board that the position
continued on page 22
VOLUME 35 / ISSUE 06 / JUNE 2007 LAPA
21
WELCOME NEW & RENEWING LAPA MEMBERS
The following is a listing of legal professionals and paralegal students who joined or
renewed their membership in Los Angeles Paralegal Association within the last 30 days. The
employer and work telephone number also are included when available. If any information
is incorrect, please fax corrections to 866-460-0506, call LAPA at 866-626-LAPA or e-mail
updates to [email protected].
VOTING
Mr. Terry Kiel
Vivendi Games, Inc.
Rosie Haq
Paul Hastiings
Ms. Alison M. Schuit
Ms. Andrea Nielsen
Ms. Alice Pfeifer
Marcela E. Brenes
Ms. Kellye Norine Taylor Kellye Taylor Taxes & Paralegal
Ms. Sheryl Uchima-Hayashi
Elizabeth Bethel
Milstein, Adelman & Kreger
Sharon Duncan
Cislo & Thomas, LLP
Mr. Bobby T. Rimas
IndyMac Bank, F.S.B.
Karen L. Sloane
Mannatt, Phelps
Francine G. Van Scoyoc
Sarah Thrift
Lewitt Hackman Shapiro Marshall
Harlan
Ms. Karina Perera
Claudia Doherty
Andi Light
Ms. Rafeedah Aaeshah Keys
Shirley Joyner
UHP Healthcare
Cheri J. Law
Toyota Motor Sales USA, Inc.
Mr. Jason La Spada Dost The Ryan Law Firm
Mr. Todd Frankel
Reed Smith LLP
Ms. Fannie L. Davison Weston Benshoof
Ms. Lea Dychingco
Legacy Home Care
Susan L. Holtby
WellPoint Health Networks
Ms. Susan Friedman
Latham & Watkins
Mr. John W. Chan
Newman, Aaronson, Janaman
Charlene Marshall
Kennerly, Lamishaw & Rossi LLP
Ms. Lilliana Montero
Montero Corporate Services
Ms. Kathy Whitmire
Kathy Whitmire Independent
Probate Paralegal
Ms. Barbara Weiner
Greenberg Traurig, LLP
Matthew R. Henderson Richard Hamlin Attorneys
Mary Frances Melbar Indymac Bank, F.S.B
Fran Scardino
Steptoe & Johnson
Carol A. Toussant
Northrop Grumman Corporation
Phyllis C. Ibsen
Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton
Coleen Porter
Arnold & Porter
Ms. Barbara Jurgens
Pircher, Nichols & Meeks
Ms. Elisabeth Sillars
Condon & Forsyth LLP
Claudia D. Espinoza
Gray & Prouty
Melanie S. Ezerzer, CLA The Quisenberry Law Firm
Ms. Jane M. Gately
Trust Company of the West
Mrs. Debbie Adams
Lance Camper Mfg. Corp.
Ms. Denise Banks
Alvarez-Glasman & Colvin
Mr. Jeff Buppert
Loeb & Loeb, LLP
Gail Hamanaka Reinig Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton
Terry L. Taylor
Ms. Althea John
Motion Picture & Television Fund
Ms. Rina Howard
Robertson & Vick, LLP
Anne Munsell
Meyers Nave
Susan M. Pindak
Kutak Rock LLP
Maggie Wen
Lee, Hong, Degerman, Kang
and Schmadeka
Ms. Susan Dicker
Susan Dicker Paralegal Services
Rebecca Loh
Paul, Hastings, Janofsky & Walker
Mr. Terry L. Wright
Catholic Healthcare West
Ms. Sondra Mayer
Harris Ginsberg LLP
Ms. Stacy-Ann Goodwin Christie Parker & Hale, LLP
Katerina K. Canyon
PriceGrabber.com
22 LAPA JUNE 2007 / VOLUME 35 / ISSUE 06
(310) 431-4796
(310) 344-3014
(818) 398-6091
(818) 705-6800
(213) 386-6603
(310) 600-0473
(310) 256-7984
(213) 680-4030
(310) 396-9600
(310) 451-0647
(213) 952-9914
(310) 203-8080
(818) 546-1055
(818) 990-2120
(213) 680-6406
(213) 688-9500
(310) 584-7656
(562) 400-9770
(310) 468-5126
(323) 662-8007
(323) 222-9231
(213) 576-1168
(562) 568-0162
(818) 234-2190
(213) 891-8206
(818) 990-7722
(213) 426-2071
(805) 927-7006
(805) 446-2799
(310) 586-7793
(310) 216-2165
(626) 535-5233
(310) 691-3514
(310) 201-3250
(213) 620-1780
(213) 243-4246
(310) 201-8992
(213) 482-1415
(323) 525-3170
(310) 993-4719
(213) 244-0625
(661) 949-3322
(562) 699-5500
(310) 282-2129
(213) 617-5530
(213) 891-8432
(818) 876-1528
(818) 878-1800
(213) 626-2906
(626) 441-0267
(213) 244-7071
(818) 899-2862
(213) 683-5645
(626) 744-2395
(310) 444-6333
(626) 683-5966
(310) 954-1040
VOTING cont.
Bess Clark
Ms. Michelle A. Kane
Manuel Lazado
Kimberly Murphy
Mr. James R. Nelson
Susan Orozco-Neu
Louise Trammel
Lynne M. Witmer
Ungerlaw, PC
Nemecek & Cole
Los Angeles City College
Matsunaga & Associates
Northrop Grumman Corporation
Aerlex Law Group
Northrop Grumman Corporation
Northrop Grumman Corporation
(310) 772-7700
(818) 598-0468
(323) 982-1695
(310) 212-0735
(310) 201-3237
(310) 392-5200
(310) 229-1300
(310) 201-3416
NASD
Computer Sciences Corp.
Paul B. Shane, CPA
Lim, Ruger & Kim, LLP
(213) 613-2614
(310) 676-8018
(818) 889-3021
(951) 326-6075
Knott & Glazier LLP
Meyer, Olson & Lowy
Legal Overload Paralegal Specialist
GSI/West
Flintridge Capital Investments
Quateman LLP
Musick, Peeler & Garrett LLP
Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton
(213) 312-9200
(310) 277-9747
(323) 756-3755
(800) 585-8371
(818) 790-7725
(310) 556-1801
(213) 629-7752
(213) 620-1780
(661) 945-0418
(310) 641-8300
A S S O C I AT E
Gloria Galvan
Cheryl Wendell
Marcia Keyes
Alisia Dunbar
Atsuko Wilson
Valeda G. Mercier
Carey Stanchfield
Jacquelyn Brown
Ms. Pamela Friedman
Ms. Martha Moreno
Juan Fernando Cortez
Ms. Penny Forrest
Linda B. Romero
Mrs. Paula Alvarez
Israel Rubio
Nelson & Natale LLP
STUDENT
Mr. William Stokley Akers
Bertha Ruiz
Writers Guild of America
(323) 782-4502
Kirk Kolodji
(310) 691-9671
Judy Clayton
Law Offices of Leslie Barnett
(310) 571-3680
Sheng Q. Cui
(323) 343-4967
Mrs. Alida G Chagolla
(213) 712-4226
Mr. Donovan Jacobs
(818) 342-1786
Katherine D. Smith
Sayegh & Pham
(310) 895-1188
Julie Chebbi
Universal Studios
(818) 777-1445
Ms. Jamie Dubrow Melzer
(818) 790-7530
Barbara Lichtenstein Los Angeles Public Defender
(213) 974-2897
Gwen Majors
Writer's Guild of America, West
(323) 951-4000
May Carr
(909) 717-2257
Ms. Griselda Jeaneth Herrera Individual
(213) 500-1894
Christina Mojahedi
Pasadena City College
(626) 833-1421
Ms. Candice R Sherrard
(310) 447-2816
Ms. Shirley A. Anderson LAUSD Office of General Counsel (213) 241-7601
Victoria Dawn Brown
(626) 918-3413
Linda Cordeiro
(323) 953-6170
JanClaire Elliott
(805) 570-8618
Tiffany Ja'Net Brown
Beck DeCorso Daly Kriendler Harris (213) 533-3907
Diane Branche
Aleshire & Wynder
(310) 720-8892
B E N E FA C T O R
Samantha Cabot
Mary K. Gagne
Kenneth Roberts
Robert Half Legal
Sarnoff Court Reporters
Large Screen Displays
(626) 463-2030
(213) 228-1100
(213) 362-1706
M E E T I N G S U M M A R Y - continued from page 21
of Vice President of Membership and Policy was
not filled and that she wished to resign her current
Executive Vice-President position to accept the VP
of Membership and Policy position. After discussion,
a vote was taken to accept Heide’s resignation as
Executive Vice President and to appoint her as
Vice-President of Membership and Policy.
• The meeting was adjourned at 8:14 p.m. L O S A N G E L E S PA R A L E G A L A S S O C I AT I O N - 2 0 0 7 B O A R D O F D I R E C T O R S
EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE
Name
Donna Reznick-Goodich, CLA
A. E. Maersch (Heide)
Bobby T. Rimas
Thomas Horlick
Mary Theroux, CP
Rhonda Reid
Title
President
VP, Membership and Policy
VP, Marketing and Planning
Treasurer
Board Advisor
Board Advisor Emeritus
Employer
Weston Benshoof
Bingham McCutchen LLP
Office #
213.576.1000
310.255.9032
213.952.9914
Los Angeles Superior Court
213.351.8115
Mayer Brown Rowe & Maw
213.229.9500
Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis, LLP
Fax #
213.576.1100
310.907.2032
Employer
Law Offices of Neil Newsom & Assoc.
Nixon Peabody LLP
Office #
310.278.7555
213.629.6036
Fax #
310.278.4310
866.586.6543
Trust Company of the West
213.244.0625
Vivendi Games, Inc.
310.431.4796
Wasserman Comden & Casselman
Thelen Reid
Moore, Bryan and Schroff
Hansen, Jacobson, Teller and Hoberman
Silver & Freedman
310.707.8673
Loeb & Loeb
213.244.0645
Eddress
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
213.738.9962
213.576.8128
DIRECTORS AT LARGE
Name
Maria Teresa Bravo
Lois Broussard
Nichole Force
Jane Gately
Terry Kiel
Patricia Leedom
Louise Leftoff, CLA
Marcia McRill
Andrea Mitchell
Kathleen Rosenstock, ACP
Denise Sierra
Debora Thomas
SECTIONS, COMMITTEES & OTHER LAPA INFO
Administrative Manager
Tracey Booth
Advertising
Tracey Booth
Bankruptcy Section
Budget & Finance Committee
Thomas Horlick
MCLE Review Committee
Mary Theroux, CP
Compliance Committee
A.E. Maersch (Heide)
CAPA Primary Representative
A.E. Maersch (Heide)
CAPA Secondary
Thomas Horlick
CAPA Website
CLA/CLAS/CAS Committee
Kathleen Rosenstock, ACP
Corporate/Real Estate Section
Jane Gately
Corporate Sponsors
Bobby T. Rimas
Downtown Section
Mary Theroux, CP
Editor of the Reporter
Carl Alvarado
General Information
Graphic Designer
Harold Maurer
Intellectual Property Section
Terry Kiel
Litigation Section
Membership Committee
Denise Sierra
NALA Liaison
Bobby T. Rimas
Newsletter Committee
Mary Theroux, CP
Nominations & Elections Committee
Lani Suzuki
Probate/Estate Planning Section
Kimberli Taylor
Pro Bono
Maria Teresa Bravo
San Fernando Valley Section
South Bay Section
Denise Sierra
Student Advisory Committee Chair
Spring Career Conference
Bobby T. Rimas
Mary Theroux, CP
Speakers Bureau/Schools
School Liaison
Donna Reznick-Goodich, CLA
Website Committee
Bobby T. Rimas
October Conference Committee
Catherine Durgin
Bobby T. Rimas
Holiday Benefit Gala Committee
866.626.LAPA
866.626.LAPA
866.626.LAPA
213.351.8115
213.229.9500
310.255.9032
310.255.9032
213.351.8115
www.caparalegal.org
866.626.LAPA
213.244.0625
213.952.9914
213.229.9500
[email protected]
866.626.LAPA
323.465.1815
310.431.4796
866.626.LAPA
310.707.8673
213.952.9914
213.229.9500
310.205.7884
310.517.8600
310.278.7555
866.626.LAPA
310.707.8673
866.626.LAPA
213.952.9914
213.229.9500
866.626.LAPA
213.576.1000
213.952.9914
866.626.LAPA
213.952.9914
866.626.LAPA
310.370.5783
Eddress
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
Don’t forget to use your
LAPA member benefits
Log on and browse the Career Center on LAPA’s website at
www.lapa.org; utilize your access to the LA Financial Federal
Credit Union and, of course, the LAPA Membership Directory,
and CAPA membership benefits. (For CAPA benefits see ad
below or check our website: www.lapa.org.)
WRITERS WANTED!!!
To submit an article, please contact the LAPA Editor at
(866) 626-LAPA or send it via email to the [email protected].
We compliment those who have submitted so many excellent
articles and invite you to join the “published.”
A Wealth of Benefits for CAPA Members!
California Alliance of Paralegal Associations
Comprehensive Health Insurance Program
for Medical, Dental and Vision Care
Independent Planning Benefits Call 800.824.4722 ext. 15
Long Term Care insurance, Disability Insurance
and Tax Reduction Strategies
David White and Associates Call 800.548.2671
Investment Planning
Lincoln Financial Call 800.901.5656
These and Other Benefits Found at ...
www.caparalegal.org
VOLUME 35 / ISSUE 06 / JUNE 2007 LAPA
23
PRSRT STD
U.S. Postage
PAID
Pasadena, CA
Permit # 740
P.O. Box 71708, Los Angeles, CA 90071 •Telephone (866)626-LAPA •Fax (866)460-0506