Paralegal crackdown

I was pleased to see that the State Bar is going after phony lawyers. However, the article did not mention any efforts by the bar to crack down on paralegals and others who are practicing law under the guise they are providing only typing services.

I just opened my Yellow Pages to “Paralegals,” and one group lists family law, bankruptcy, civil law, immigration, legal documents, divorce, answer unlawful detainers, adoption, restraining orders, child support, child custody, guardianship, civil law suits, small claims suits and D.A. child support cases. I’ve been an attorney since 1979 and I don’t have the enormous skill and expertise to be competent to advise clients in all of those areas.

While the Judicial Council Forms look easy to fill out, in fact it requires good legal judgment and training to decide which boxes to check. I have received calls from paralegals and typing services wanting to know if I would accompany their clients to court for a small fixed fee, stating that I would only be making a pro forma appearance and that they would handle all of the paperwork, have the client sign it, file it with the court, and give it to me a couple days before the hearing to review.

It is high time that the State Bar take steps to stamp out all illegal practices of law, not just phony lawyers but paralegals and typing services as well.

Allen P. Wilkinson
Whittier

A different injustice

Assemblyman Dave Jones mentions in his article (February) that his “hope is that it will not be necessary to move to mandatory pro bono hours” for California lawyers. That he can so casually entertain the idea of subjecting others to a “draft” to satisfy his own sense of charity reveals much on his notions of freedom and fairness.

If there is a general public need, then the state should pay for it rather than compelling select private individuals to sacrifice their time, effort and/or money to satisfy it. Closing “the justice gap” is a laudable goal. Forcibly taking from one person who works hard for what he/she earns and provides equal value through his/her services and giving it over for the private benefit of another however only creates a different injustice.  

Todd M. Moreno
San Francisco

Full disclosure

Our bar leaders are proposing that lawyers without malpractice insurance be required to disclose this lack of coverage to their clients. The issue, they assure us, is simply one of full disclosure.

We are told that 18 per cent of California lawyers in private practice are uninsured, so this proposed rule is a non-issue for the other 82 percent. I suspect that the uninsured lawyers include: Low-income lawyers, for whom a $3,000 premium would be a big hit; lawyers without any clerical help, who usually can’t get insurance in any case; and lawyers who handle mostly low-value cases and have concluded that it is cheaper, in case of a claim, simply to pay off the claim, particularly as the policy carries a $5,000 deductible.

It seems to me the rule does not go far enough. A client who is putting capital in the hands of a lawyer wants to know whether the capital is protected in case of malpractice. Simply being told that there is insurance is not enough; how much insurance? I would suggest, therefore, that the rule should be that all lawyers disclose to all clients the fact of insurance, the amount of the liability limit, and perhaps also the name of the carrier and whether the carrier is admitted in California. I assume that bar leaders would not oppose this. It is simply a matter of full disclosure.

Michael Mahoney
San Francisco

Permanent disbarment

I truly hope the State Bar of California does not jump on the “war on crime” bandwagon that has manifested during the past two decades. What will likely happen, similar to what is presently occurring in state and federal courts throughout the United States, is that attorneys committing the so-called “blue collar immoral crimes” will lose their license permanently. “White collar” misconduct will go disproportionately unpunished.

However, regardless of what type of misconduct occurred, the attorney committing the misconduct will be punished accordingly by the judicial system and reprimanded by the State Bar. Rehabilitation, largely ignored in today’s society, is not a delusion. Permanent disbarment is not the answer.

Cecilia Oseguera
Assistant Federal Defender
Charlotte, N.C.