Scots public get raw deal in legal services as paralegals fall under Law Society of Scotland's dishonest regulatory regime

The Law Society has made a big song & dance this week about it's registration scheme for Paralegals, which is the result of 'agreements' reached between the Law Society and the Scottish Paralegals Association, inferring the scheme, which will effectively see the Law Society control and regulate paralegals, will be good for both the client and the legal profession at large.

While some may see the legal profession under the current rule of the Law Society may benefit from grabbing control of paralegals, if anything, the reverse is actually the case, where, as the Law Society has proved particularly through its recent history , it cannot effective manage any part of the profession, and adding the burden of administering, registering & regulating paralegals will do nothing to enhance either the Society's reputation or that of the profession at large.

Ostensibly, what is happening to paralegals, means that when clients have a problem with a paralegal, they will of course, have to take the matter up with the Law Society of Scotland, and as the new Scottish Legal Complaints Commission doesn't seem to be equipped to deal with paralegals, the buck will stop with the troublesome Law Society of Scotland who historically have ensured client complaints go nowhere.

So, in short, Law Society of Scotland control over paralegals is a bad thing for clients .... as we all know from how the Law Society has mismanaged complaints against solicitors for the past thirty years plus.

Want an example of what could happen to a client complaint to the Law Society of Scotland against a paralegal ? Well, there are plenty examples on this blog and in the media of how the Law Society of Scotland treat complaints against lawyers .....

Neil Stevenson - who was appointed by the infamous Douglas Mill to head up 'strategic change' at the Law Society of Scotland, wrote this week in the Scotsman law page on the subject of Law Society control over paralegals :

"There is no doubt that paralegals already provide a valuable service within the legal market, but at the moment anyone can call themselves a paralegal. Introducing a registered status will mean that employers can be sure of the standards met by employees. It will also give paralegals the professional recognition they deserve. And clients will benefit from knowing that the paralegal, who they may have more direct contact with than a solicitor, has been assessed properly.

This development also represents continuing change at the Law Society of Scotland. An innovative regulatory approach has been developed to tackle the issue, and state-of-the-art IT will underpin compliance"

I would remind readers that Douglas Mill, the outgoing Chief Executive of the Law Society of Scotland, is probably the one individual who has done the most damage to the Scots legal profession over the years, with policy failure after policy failure, leaving the profession with the highest levels of complaints, the highest levels of negligence cases, and the poorest level of public trust & respect for solicitors for decades ..... hardly a man who should have any lasting influence on things if the damage he and his kind have done, is to be repaired ?

"An innovative regulatory approach" from the Law Society of Scotland .. I wonder what on earth that could mean in the light of how they have handled regulation for all these years ?

Perhaps the Law Society of Scotland will simply lose the pretence of any honesty whatsoever and bin all complaints against paralegals as they are apparently doing at Drumsheugh Gardens in the run up to October 2008 when the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission takes over regulating service complaints and other issues relating to client complaints against Scottish solicitors.

What we are seeing in these moves by the Law Society over paralegals is simply a move to ensure it will control the legal profession from top to bottom, at every level, ensuring it will have influence & control over everything from the admissions process to control over rights of audience & representation, and of course, retain as much influence and control over access to justice itself.

As things stand, the Law Society will still be able to dictate and restrict the Scots public's choice of legal representatives in a continuing highly restrictive legal services market as indicated by last week's Law Society Alternative Business Structure proposals, and now the public are faced with an even greater danger in the quality & accountability of the present level of legal services on offer with the Law Society's annexing of the paralegals profession.

Unless the SNP Government or other political parties in the Scottish Parliament move forward with proposals to ensure the Scots legal services market is fully opened up to competition and freedom of choice, as recommended by the OFT and many consumer organisations, we will not see any increased quality, accountability or safety of legal services in Scotland.

So, over to less public choice and ever more regulatory failures as clients get a weaker, less safe legal service than ever in Scotland - where regulation of paralegals by the Law Society is definitely not good news for anyone except the Law Society control freaks and those who wish to further control the public's access to justice ..

The Scotsman article written by the Law Society Director of 'Strategic Change" :

Paralegal registration scheme is good news for the profession and for clients

By Neil Stevenson

WHAT will becoming a Law Society of Scotland registered paralegal actually mean?

The status is a badge of quality, indicating that the holder has met certain academic standards, has a certain amount of work experience and can carry out work to a prescribed standard.

We must emphasise that the exact arrangements are still under discussion, but having spoken to most of the concerned parties we have a clear idea of how the final proposal may look.

The Law Society is proud that this is a true partnership project, with the society and the Scottish Paralegal Association working closely to ensure that this new scheme brings benefits to everyone involved.

Paralegals who have attained a formal recognition under the scheme will be eligible to apply for entry to the register. A wide range of qualifications are likely to be considered relevant, from HNC/HNDs provided by Scotland’s colleges to provision from respected commercial providers such Central Law Training and Rewards Training.

We are also delighted to have worked with the Scottish Qualifications Authority (SQA) to redevelop an HNC/HND in legal services, and are now moving to develop professional development awards in a variety of key areas of law. For the first time this will provide a qualifications framework for paralegals.

Paralegals will then need to undertake an assessed year in practice, supervised by a solicitor. Those already with office experience may be able to follow an accelerated route, with the emphasis on ensuring all those becoming registered meet the required standard.

Those achieving registration will be required to complete annual ongoing training and will have to uphold standards laid out in a code of conduct. A complaints process will be put in place, but the emphasis will be on upholding standards through a variety of regulatory approaches.

There is no doubt that paralegals already provide a valuable service within the legal market, but at the moment anyone can call themselves a paralegal. Introducing a registered status will mean that employers can be sure of the standards met by employees. It will also give paralegals the professional recognition they deserve. And clients will benefit from knowing that the paralegal, who they may have more direct contact with than a solicitor, has been assessed properly.

This development also represents continuing change at the Law Society of Scotland. An innovative regulatory approach has been developed to tackle the issue, and state-of-the-art IT will underpin compliance.

This is also a year when the Society’s own governance arrangements are being reviewed and are likely to significantly alter following the move to bring in more experience from outside the profession and streamline our management.

• Neil Stevenson is from the Law Society of Scotland.

Law Society's 'strategic change' fizzles out as protection of monopoly on access to legal services takes priority

Law Society Chief Douglas Mill's latest creation of 'strategic change', along with costly posts funded [but not voted on] by the membership, has not lasted long in the pretence of bringing change to the Scots legal profession in the face of looming changes to the way the public can access the legal services market.

As the new 'head' of 'strategic change' at the Law Society reveals in media articles today, the policy of the Law Society to maintain the closed shop of legal services, is to bring paralegals to the fore, ensuring they are fully 'Law Society registered' as the latest excuse to obstruct progress towards the opening of the legal services market to anyone suitably qualified and reaching suitable standards which the Law Society itself have never been able to attain or maintain.

I have covered this issue before here :

Open access to legal services & poorly regulated paralegals wont resolve public's lack of trust in lawyers

We don't need lawyers, we need non lawyers says Law Society of Scotland as Client Relations remain in the gutter

The Paralegals profession has existed for a long time - and enjoy almost the same high levels of complaints against poor service & conduct, as do solicitors.

A few recent examples of complaints against paralegals, which have seen everything from families cheated from inheritances to collapsed house sales and embezzled client funds, prove the paralegals profession is as badly regulated & maintained as solicitors ... who occasionally, or more often than not, transfer the blame of some of their actions back & forth to paralegals to get off the hook, and occasionally drafting in paralegals to back up lies, even fake up a bit of paperwork to avoid a serious complaint as some complaints investigations have revealed ...

Since paralegals are for the most, unregulated, pursuing complaints against their work has been problematic at best.

The Law Society, in their 'cunning plan' to maintain a closed shop of legal services, can see that paralegals themselves can be a key tool in the fight to maintain that monopoly of access to justice which the legal profession dominates .. so to this end, there is to be a scheme established to register paralegals .. and take them 'under the wing' of the Law Society itself.

This move will certainly not give any client a better chance of having a fair hearing of a complaint against a paralegal's poor service, probably as complaints figures against solicitors over the years have demonstrated, it will make matters much worse and ensure the Law Society's habit of whitewashing the legal profession for even the most serious scandals will continue long into the future.

So, what do we really need to bring change to the legal profession ?

Well, for a start, we need a fully independent legal services regulator, much like the Legal Services Board in England & Wales - something which Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill angrily denies Scotland needs - because he feels, as a lawyer himself, that the legal profession should be independent from the rest of us and be able to get away with what they please.

My earlier coverage of Justice Secretary MacAskill's rather hostile response to independent regulation of the legal profession :

Justice Secretary MacAskill insists on second class legal system for Scotland as England names & shames crooked lawyers

Such an independent legal services regulator, free from any influence or ex staff & hangers on from the Law Society of Scotland and it's various affiliates, could get on with the task of ensuring standards within an opened legal services market, and tackle regulation & disciplinary matters of all kinds, leaving the Law Society as little more than a union for lawyers as it always should have been - not the sole regulator of the legal profession as it has proved it cannot be.

Next up, we need, of course, the full & unrestricted opening up of the legal services market, from the current set up where only a Law Society of Scotland member can provide you with legal services or access to the courts, to that of a well policed open business structure where anyone who reaches a suitable standard of qualification and indemnity insurance coverage, can enter the legal services market and provide the legal services to the public which the Law Society feels it cannot, and no doubt at a much cheaper price than the Law Society feels it can provide ...

Gone should be the days of £159+VAT for three lines of text on an A4 page ... and legal work which might cost £200 spun out to end up as something like £4000 .. if only the legal services market could be opened up, but as you can see, the legal profession don't want to lose their cash cow, and control over how you, the public, have access to legal services and the courts - and that control extends far up the political ladder, as recent actions from the Justice Secretary on these issues, which can only be viewed pro-lawyer and anti-public.

Of course, to get the legal services market fully opened up, we need to have someone other than the Justice Secretary and the Lord President clearing individuals or companies applications to enter the legal services market, as both the Lord President and the Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill are members of the Law Society of Scotland.

We all know the Law Society of Scotland wants to maintain the closed shop of legal services .. so it's no surprise that Mr MacAskill and the Lord President have been sitting down happily striking out all applications to enter the legal services market to-date.

As readers will recall, Mr MacAskill mislead both the Cabinet Secretary for Finance John Swinney. and the Parliament itself on this matter where he claimed in a leaked letter that people could indeed apply for rights of representation - but all have failed so far under the pen of Mr MacAskill and the Lord President.

Kenny MacAskill writes to John Swinney - 'individuals can apply for rights of legal representation, but secretly we are killing off their applications in favour of lawyers ...'

So in short, no change from the Law Society in it's 'strategic change' policy, but that is not unexpected because let's face it - who would want to lose control over the biggest money making monopoly in Scotland today - control over access to justice, access to legal services, and the right to charge and fleece the public for exorbitant costs of using those legal services.

Something about a leopard never changing its spots ?

The Scotsman reports :

An exciting time as this ‘new profession’ matures

By NEIL STEVENSON

CONFUSED? You are not alone… paralegals have long been a vital part of the legal market in Scotland. You’ll find them working with individual clients looking to buy a home or take a civil case, and you’ll find them working for Scotland’s largest commercial firms and financial institutions.

The Scottish Government and local councils employ them, and they work within Scotland’s charities and not-for-profit organisations. But you’ll notice I still haven’t defined exactly what a paralegal is.

So what happens when you ask paralegals to define their title themselves? Surely they know what a paralegal is? “A non-solicitor fee-earner” comes close to a definition, but seems to lack aspiration. From my previous work in the NHS it is extremely hard to imagine a highly qualified and experienced nurse-manager describing themselves as a “non-doctor care-giver”.

“Professional legal support staff” at least avoids a definition that rests on not being something, but then “support” doesn’t capture the workload of the hundreds of paralegals who are actually providing valuable front-line services to clients.

Perhaps more concerning is the fact that anyone can currently use the title. While law firms tend to have rigorous recruitment and supervision arrangements, especially since the solicitors supervising the paralegals remain personally responsible for the quality of their work, this is not always the case with non-law firms.

The Law Society of Scotland has received complaints in the past from members of the public who have thought they were getting legal advice from a qualified and knowledgeable source, only to find that anyone can use the title paralegal, that there are no set standards of practice or required qualifications, and as a group paralegals are not formally regulated.

This lack of clarity is confusing for the public and those working in the sector alike. However, the Law Society of Scotland, the professional body for solicitors, is now set to establish a registration scheme for paralegals. The Society is working closely with the Scottish Paralegal Association (SPA), the independent professional association whose experienced members are calling for clear standards and more formal regulation of the sector.

Work is underway that will define the learning outcomes and workplace experience someone must have before they can use the term “Law Society of Scotland Registered Paralegal”. There will be an online database allowing professionals and members of the public to quickly confirm whether someone is registered. Once registered, paralegals will be required to stay up-to-date in the law and best practice in client care.

Paralegals will also be able to access Society services, including our highly respected professional practice helpline, our award-winning monthly Journal, and Update – our continuing professional development courses and online learning. There will be a clear progression path to more senior levels of registration.

Rigorous standards will be set and maintained that will be transparent and flexible. We hope to work with organisations providing paralegal training to learn from their experience about what is appropriate and relevant in education and assessment.

The views of the public and clients will also inform the work. The recent review of how to qualify as a solicitor provides valuable data on what non-solicitors think key skills for those working in the sector should be. And, of course, we’ll also consult with employers and paralegals themselves to make sure both education and work-based learning are at an appropriate level.

The outcome of this work should lead to paralegals working to clear standards that the public can refer to, a defined career development route for paralegals, and clear grades to help recruitment, development and retention of paralegals for employers.

With so much change in the profession and legal services market at the moment, I’m sometimes asked why I am regularly citing this project as one of the most exciting the Society has underway at the moment.

I believe it’s because we are seeing essentially a new profession, with all that enthusiasm and experience, start to emerge and be formally recognised.

And it’s because we are starting to see the “legal profession” as not just solicitors and advocates, but as a vibrant and thriving part of the Scottish economy to which a whole range of professionals contribute – something that will be a guiding theme for the Society in the future.

The Society hopes to announce more details in the spring but, if you want to sign-up to receive further information as soon as it’s available, then please e-mail your name to

• Neil Stevenson is the head of strategic change at the Law Society of Scotland.

Open access to legal services & poorly regulated paralegals wont resolve public's lack of trust in lawyers

While the problems of the public's access to justice may be somewhat resolved by following the OFT's recommendations for opening up the legal services market in Scotland, there remains the larger issue of restoring public trust to the services offered by Scottish legal profession, trust which has most certainly been lost over the past 20 years due to an anti client, anti complaint policy operated by the Law Society of Scotland which has seen the profession's reputation hit an all time low.

Today, the Scotsman reports on these very same consumer concerns we all feel in dealings with the legal profession, and also interviews the interim Chief Executive of the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission - the new complaints body which, next year, will take over some of the regulatory functions of the Law Society of Scotland in dealing with complaints against solicitors. One issue particularly in focus is the use of paralegals by the legal profession ...

The issue of paralegals was left out of the Legal Profession & Legal Aid (Scotland) Act 2007 .. something some people including myself find a bit strange .. almost leading to charges the legal profession itself saw to it that paralegals didn't get a mention, so their services could remain under the control & regulation of the legal profession itself ....

Richard Smith, the interim Chief Executive of the SLCC is quoted in the Scotsman article, with regard to the increasingly worrying issue of the conduct of paralegals and how they will be supervised by solicitors & the legal firms which employ them.

Richard Smith : "The Scottish Paralegals Association advises that there are now more than 6,000 paralegals working in public-facing practices. The Legal Profession and Legal Aid (Scotland) Act 2007 doesn't mention paralegals - it makes the assumption the practitioner is responsible for actions by staff.

"It is very likely the commission will uphold some complaints against solicitors where, as revealed in the investigation, it was a paralegal and not the solicitor who was directly involved. Any such failures will trigger the question of whether the solicitor adequately supervised that member of staff. I can see the commission pressing the Law Society of Scotland to consider inadequate supervision as a matter of misconduct."

Mr Smith is right to point out the issue of paralegals will become a concern, as the Law Society has viewed the paralegals issue as one to retain it's control over legal services in Scotland.

Paralegals do play an important part of work in the legal profession, allegedly freeing up solicitors for ever increasing workloads & courtroom representation, but some at the Law Society saw their use as a way to circumvent the new regulatory regime about to hit the legal profession in 2008.

The Law Society had also hoped that increasing the numbers of paralegals, who work for the very same legal firms with poor regulatory histories and trails of ruined clients, would keep control over the public's access to legal services, thus circumventing charges from consumer organisations & campaigners there was a monopoly on legal services operated & controlled by the legal profession in Scotland.

In short .. a policy along the lines of ... 'oh if you don't feel you can trust a lawyer to do your legal work, you can always go to a paralegal' ... but that wouldn't work, because the paralegals are employed by the same legal firms who have appalling regulatory histories and have ruined many clients in the past ...

It may be that some legal firms such as those featured HERE or HERE or HERE or even any of the ten legal firms listed here HERE could swell their ranks of paralegals in an attempt to disguise their past .. but when things go wrong, the client finds out there is as little redress against the negligent actions of paralegals under the supervision of their solicitor seniors with long complaints records, as there has been against lawyers under the supervision of the Law Society of Scotland.

If, for example, you were to ask me, would I go to a paralegal who worked for Stormonth Darling Solicitors in Kelso - the same firm of Scotland's most famous Crooked Lawyer - Andrew Penman ... I'd say, definitely not, with a complaints history such as theirs !

So before you dash off to use a paralegal on the premise it might be safer than using a crooked lawyer, find out something about the legal firm which employs the paralegal first, how that firm and its solicitors have treated clients in the past, how they have dealt with complaints etc ... because a paralegal will only be as good as the firm which employs them.

At the end of the day, the problems of trust & accountability will only be resolved by removing all regulatory function away from lawyers, which as is evident, remains the legal profession's power base in all dealings with, and against the public.

To restore public trust in the legal services offered by the Scottish legal profession, there has to be an acceptance by it's members of their past sins against clients, made worse by the complete failure of self regulation in many cases. Only an honest attempt to correct those issues and do the right thing for many clients who have suffered injustice by the legal profession for so long will to some extent ease the general perception of widespread corruption in the world of regulatory practice in the legal profession.

My message to the Justice Secretary - give the public a level playing field in dealings with lawyers, this time around. Clean up the mistakes of the past and bring accountability, transparency, honesty, and the public's independence of choice, to the legal services market in Scotland. It will do everyone some good.

Consumer concerns don't begin and end with alternative business structures

JENNIFER VEITCH

WHEN it first emerged that Which? had made a super-complaint to the Office of Fair Trading (OFT) about the Scottish legal services market, few solicitors seemed to expect it would amount to much.

After all, it was barely a year since the Scottish Executive's Research Working Group report, which had included significant input from the OFT, recommended that there was no need to intervene in the marketplace - at least not yet anyway.

But following the super-complaint, the OFT has, indeed, called for some significant changes with potentially far-reaching implications for the profession and the public.

While it has stopped short of endorsing the call for an independent Legal Services Board to take over the regulatory roles of the Law Society of Scotland and the Faculty of Advocates, the OFT has agreed with Which? that allowing lawyers to adopt alternative business structures may benefit consumers.

Provided "appropriate safeguards" are in place to protect consumers and the integrity of the profession, the OFT argues the current restrictions are unnecessary, and prevent both solicitors and advocates from "innovating" to meet the needs of their clients.

For those solicitors who want to see a level playing field with English firms in the post-Clementi era - and those advocates who have recognised the need to gain a more competitive edge in the marketplace - a move towards alternative business structures may be welcome, if only because it provides some clue to the likely way ahead.

Some of the current market restrictions, such as the Faculty's controversial "mixed doubles" rule, preventing advocates from teaming up with solicitor advocates, certainly seem ripe for reform. Many clients will also see the merit in cutting out the so-called middle man and allowing consumers to instruct an advocate direct, without also paying for the additional expense of a solicitor.

From the Faculty's point of view, allowing consumers to go straight to an advocate might also help to counterbalance increased competition from solicitors and solicitor advocates. Adapting to compete in the marketplace will be crucial if alternative business structures erode their key selling point of being independent sole practitioners.

But wider concerns for the profession and consumers must remain. Both the Society and the Faculty have already warned of the danger of applying Clementi-style reforms to the Scottish marketplace when access to justice is already a significant problem in remote and rural areas.

However, the OFT takes the view that this is not sufficient justification for maintaining the status quo. Indeed, its response to the super-complaint notes that firms reported this problem was closely related to rates of legal aid and falling profit margins, and that outside ownership of firms might actually help to improve their management.

Yet questions are also being asked as to whether there could be unintended negative consequences for consumers of opening up the market. Is there potential for alternative business structures to impact on the quality of service in future?

Richard Smith, the interim chief executive of the new Scottish Legal Complaints Commission, which will become the gateway for service complaints next year, suggests the new commissioners may want to explore the implications, for example, of solicitors supervising more non-legally qualified staff.

"The OFT response has prompted discussion about the so-called Tesco-Law business model," he says. "This is caricatured as an office block full of paralegals, supervised by a handful of solicitors. I think the commissioners would want the debate on the reform of business structures to include proper consideration of how to assure competent service delivery and that clearly includes the issue of adequate supervision."

Smith points out that, even without the advent of alternative business structures, the issue of supervision of staff is already "an important and growing concern".

He adds: "The Scottish Paralegals Association advises that there are now more than 6,000 paralegals working in public-facing practices. The Legal Profession and Legal Aid (Scotland) Act 2007 doesn't mention paralegals - it makes the assumption the practitioner is responsible for actions by staff.

"It is very likely the commission will uphold some complaints against solicitors where, as revealed in the investigation, it was a paralegal and not the solicitor who was directly involved. Any such failures will trigger the question of whether the solicitor adequately supervised that member of staff. I can see the commission pressing the Law Society of Scotland to consider inadequate supervision as a matter of misconduct."

It seems clear any firms wishing to adopt alternative business structures - particularly if it involves moving towards a greater volume of work - will need to ensure they have robust quality-control systems in place to avoid falling foul of the new commission.

Earlier this year, Smith sent out a strong message to the profession that it should set new standards for service, before the commissioners start defining them through their investigations into complaints. "If the professional bodies do not move far enough and fast enough, the commission will, through its adjudications, start to determine what is acceptable service practice," he said.

The Society has started working on two key initiatives that it argues will address such issues. It is currently engaging with the profession on the question of alternative business structures: it will hold a major conference next month, followed by a consultation paper in the autumn.

An expert working group is also drafting new standards of conduct and service, which are expected to be brought before the Society's next AGM in the spring, ahead of the new commission opening for business.

Richard Henderson, the Society's vice-president, described this as an opportunity for the profession to "debate seriously... what actually sits at the heart of legal practice and to spell out what lawyers stand for".

Certainly, the Society is taking pains to communicate the message that the profession is not resting on its laurels and wants to drive up standards.

But the fact both the Society and the Faculty called on the OFT to take no action on the super-complaint suggests they may still need to grasp that, in future, it will be the consumer, not the lawyer, who will sit at the heart of legal practice.

Yet the profession does have a window of opportunity here.

The OFT has urged the Society and Faculty to update their practice rules to sweep away the restrictions identified in its report.

They might do well to take the initiative swiftly or find that further reforms are imposed from on high.

We don't need lawyers, we need non lawyers says Law Society of Scotland as Client Relations remain in the gutter

In the words of Alistair Sim, Director of Marsh UK - there isn't a lawyer in Scotland who doesn't have a complaints record.

Well, with 5000 plus complaints a year, for the last 10 years, coming in against around 9,500 solicitors in Scotland, that would mean that either every lawyer has had around 5 complaints made against them by clients, or some lawyers have many more complaints made against them by clients, which the Law Society dutifully prevaricates, delays, fiddles, fobs off, etc to make sure the very cream of the crooked in Scotland's legal profession get off the hook every time while the client gets ruined.

Some fine examples of the Law Society of Scotland Client Relations Office complaints handling I have covered in previous articles :

Law Society of Scotland covers up history of crooked lawyer as new President indicates little change on pro lawyer anti client policies

Scottish Legal Awards - Lawyer Lawyer on the wall, who is the most crooked of us all ?

Law Society of Scotland rejects complaint over estate ruined by huge legal fees

Lawyers complaints system thought to have caused intimidation of clients for years

So, with the pool of lawyers in Scotland being tainted in the blood of clients, the legal profession needs to look to other areas of the population to expand it's services, which is why we are currently being treated to a raft of stories on the recruitment of paralegals and the lowering of 'education requirements' of those joining the legal profession. Something perhaps along the lines of ... "you don't need all that education just now, we can train you up to be a good litte crook later on!"

The thing about paralegals, is they are of course, regulated by the Law Society of Scotland - so when your shiny new paralegal does as much damage to your case as your crooked solicitor might have done, there will be as much redress against their actions as we currently have with crooked lawyers - and that is none .. at least none until the new Scottish Legal Complaints Commission comes along, if it survives the pasting the Law Society and the legal profession are currently giving it .. fiddling in it's appointments plans, having a few meetings on the side with politicians to 'limit' it's remit among other things.

The question too on paralegals of course, is, would you like to work for a well known, allegedly respectable firm of lawyers which has nailed clients to the wall on so many occasions previously ?

What good would it do someone to go work for a firm of lawyers, were for instance, a senior partner has paid for an assault to be carried out on a client ? or an Office Manger has assaulted one of the female members of staff & got away with it ? How much trust could someone put in a firm like that and what advantages could it bring paralegals who work for such a firm ?

Here follows, is a story from the Scotsman on paralegals and how the legal profession now embrace them, hoping for their salvation in non lawyers, when salvation is perhaps putting right the sins of the past and learning to treat clients with respect, as the law demands.

http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/scotland.cfm?id=1104592007

Forget a law background, customer service skills matter most for paralegals
DAVID BORROWMAN

IF THERE is one thing all Scottish law firms welcome, it is the emergence of the paralegal profession. It provides a fulfilling career for many highly motivated people, and the qualification has earned the respect of the entire industry. However, many firms are split on how to recruit and train paralegals. Should you recruit people with some previous legal training or train from scratch? Caesar & Howie prefer the latter route.

First we look for people with the right attitude and abilities in customer service. Our firm's overriding priority is to ensure clients experience a personal and professional quality of service. We have therefore focused our recruitment efforts for paralegals towards people who can demonstrate excellent customer-service skills, then we train them to be paralegals.

We are fortunate to have a former law lecturer from Stirling University as part of our in-house training department who assesses the candidates and puts them through their training. This is supplemented by specialist paralegal training materials, purchased from Strathclyde University, as well as home study assignments. I believe that knowledge can be taught but attitudes and personality cannot. The technical skills can be acquired, but it is difficult to find good customer service via a textbook.

We recently recruited six conveynancing paralegals, none of whom had a legal background. Without exception they have excelled in the paralegal positions. They have completed their paralegal exams in just three months - the shortest time ever recorded in the firm - and with a further 6-12 months' practical experience will become fully qualified. All the candidates had responded to an advertisement in a local newspaper.
One of the respondents was Wilma Hunter, a local government officer. She had always been keen on the law but had been put off by the competitive nature of the legal profession and the demanding entry qualifications. Wilma never thought she could gain a legal qualification, but now she is confidently dealing with our clients on their conveyancing transactions.

The key attributes we look for in paralegals are good communications, organisational and customer service skills as well as a great deal of common sense. Coupled with a willingness to learn, there is no reason why anyone from a wide range of backgrounds cannot have a satisfying career as a paralegal.

• David Borrowman is the managing partner of Caesar & Howie, the central Scotland law group.