Posted: December 7, 2021
Rules Governing Licensed Paralegal Practitioners – Comment Period Closed January 21, 2022
RGLPP15-0703. Qualifications for licensure as a licensed paralegal practitioner. Amend. The proposed amendment to this rule would add relevant subsections for ease of reading, including headings for the “Specialized Course of Instruction requirement,” and the “Substantive Law-Related Experience” requirement. A substantive amendment would also permit academic credit from an Approved Law School or Accredited Program or School to count toward an applicant’s substantive law-related experience hours requirement, which would be capped at 750 hours or half the 1,500 hours requirement.
RGLPP15-0701. Definitions. Amend. The amendments may be summarized as follows:
- Add clarification to the scope of an LPP’s practice within family law to include common law marriage as well as name and gender change (there is a coordinating amendment in USB Rule 14-802(c));
- Create a definition for “Specialized Course of Instruction” referenced in admissions Rule 15-703;
- Omit unnecessary language in paragraph (ee) related to supervision by a licensed lawyer, paralegal, or law student; and
- Create a new definition in paragraph (gg) for “Substantive Legal Course.”
USB14-0802. Authorization to practice law. Amend. The proposed amendment adds clarification to the scope of an LPP’s practice within family law to include common law marriage as well as name and gender change (there is a coordinating amendment in LPP Rule 15-701).
LGLPP15-0703 “Qualifications for licensure as Qualified Legal Practitioner” assumes a system wherein “legal practitioners” -who fail to meet the minimum standards or who falsify their compliance with such minimum standards – are “at risk” of penalty or forfeiture of licensure in the event of harm to their “clients”. The proposed modifications appear to add flexibility or clarity to minimum training requirements but the ultimate goal of such training is competency & integrity. Based upon recent encounters with persons who have mastered the “art” of “posing” as “qualified legal practitioners,” notwithstanding their lack of minimum “required” education & experience, & the ongoing failure of the Utah judicial system to respond in a timely & effective manner — thereby to protect the victims of such “posers”– these (well intended changes) must be accompanied by effective supervision & meaningful penalties in the event of deception or malpractice. I would direct attention to # 970900920 (3rd Jud Dist Ct) -which proceeding was commenced in 1996 but (shockingly) never achieved the goal of protecting the public from ongoing larcenous activities disguised as the delivery of legal services. Sadly, the ineffectiveness of the “regulatory” efforts of courts who sought to end the defendant’s long standing pattern of deceptive practices (vaunting her claimed licensure & training as a “qualified legal practitioner”) demonstrates the inherent weakness of the licensure system. No finely worded “qualification” standard can protect the community from such predatory activities if the supervision & enforcement of such standards, is absent.