Board considers two-tier plan for state paralegal regulation: 'it's a wonderful jumping-off document to get paraleqals into our programs in The Florida Bar'.

The Bar Board of Governors got its first look at proposals to regulate paralegals, and members raised questions about how some paralegals would be "grandfathered" under the new scheme.

Board members received the report from the Special Committee to Study Paralegal Regulation at their April 7 meeting. They are scheduled to fully debate the recommendations, which would create Chapter 20 in the Rules Regulating The Florida Bar, and vote on the proposal at their June 2 meeting.

"It's a wonderful jumping-off document to get paralegals into our programs in The Florida Bar and keep them away from [regulation by] the executive branch," said committee member Scott Ruden.

The committee has proposed a two-tier system for regulating paralegals. The first tier would encompass paralegals as currently defined by Bar Rule 10-2.1. That rule holds that a paralegal is someone qualified with education, training, or work experience who, under the supervision of a lawyer, performs delegated substantive work for which the lawyer is responsible.

Tier two paralegals would have to meet experience, education, and continuing education criteria and then could hold themselves out as "Florida Registered Paralegals."

The proposal's grand fathering provision would allow paralegals who can show substantial experience, but who don't meet the education or certification requirements, to become registered paralegals. That provision is limited to the first three years of the program.

Bar President Alan Bookman reminded the board that state lawmakers had introduced bills that would set up a regulatory system for paralegals and place it under the Board of Business and Professional Regulation. He said the Bar has been working with Rep. Juan Zapata, R-Miami, the House sponsor of the bill, and he is satisfied with the special committee's plan and won't pursue that legislation this year.

"He agrees this is a matter that should be addressed by the Supreme Court and the Bar," Bookman said. "We worked very closely with Rep. Zapata and he is very appreciative of the work the Bar and this committee have done."

Board member Andrew Sasso said he had several people ask him about the grandfathering section.

"The grandfathering provision was a product of compromise. It is a limited grandfathering," Ruden said. "Some of the people want an unlimited grandfathering and some wanted none at all.

"There are a number of qualified people now in law offices doing the work that qualifies as paralegal, who are called paralegals, and being billed as paralegals, and are as qualified as those who received education and passed [certification] exams," he added. "As the registered program, the tier two program rolls in those people who are in that circumstance and they would be grandfathered."

But the long-term goal, Ruden said, is for tier two status to be restricted to those who meet the education or certification requirements.

"Grandfathering protects the persons who are in our offices who have been doing this for 30 years and know it better than we do, but don't have that certificate on the wall," Bookman said.

The president also reported that a letter had been received from the South Florida Paralegal Association, which advocated mandatory compliance with tier-two requirements by anyone using the title paralegal. But Bookman said that Tana Stringfellow, of the Florida Alliance of Paralegals--an organization that brings together the statewide Paralegal Association of Florida, Inc., and six other regional paralegal groups in the state-and a member of the Bar's special committee, said the alliance still supports the proposed Bar plan.

Any rule change approved by the board in June would be submitted to the Supreme Court for its review.

Gary Blankenship Senior Editor