2015 Annual Meeting

AGENDA TOPIC 3

2015 ANNUAL MEETING

Honolulu, Hawaii

The primary purpose of an Agenda Topic is to discuss policy matters.

An Agenda Topic need not be accompanied by a Resolution.

Submitted by: Philadelphia Association of Paralegals

South Jersey Paralegal Association

Tampa Bay Paralegal Association

Oregon Paralegal Association

History: NFPA is recognized as a national leader for the paralegal community and has a strong commitment to advancing the Paralegal Profession. Historically NFPA has issued position statements pertaining to NFPA and to the paralegal profession.

Current Situation: NFPA does not currently have a public policy or public position on Regulation or similar plans which are being proposed in various formats in many states across the country.

Strategic Long-Range Plan: The issuance of a position statement would serve the core purpose of the Strategic Long-Range Plan: Advancing the Paralegal Profession.

Detailed Description of Recommendation: Regulation in its various forms has already begun, and in some states has been endorsed by the state bar association. As the leader of the paralegal profession, NFPA must be proactive and be able to take a stance regarding regulation and assist the local associations, when requested.

Based on the vote of the members at the 2015 Policy Meeting, NFPA will draft a position statement consistent with the results of the vote, said position statement to be presented for approval by the delegates at the 2016 Policy Meeting.

Pros: As the leader of the paralegal profession, NFPA should have a public position on this subject, not just an internal policy, in order to assist its member associations within the individual states, as requested.

Cons: none

Financial Cost: none

Number of Volunteers and Estimate of Hours Needed: 5-10 Volunteers / 3-5 Hours

State any known legal implications: none known

Have you reviewed NFPA’s Bylaws, Policy Manual and/or Procedures Manual to determine if there are any conflicts? Yes No If yes, please provide details.

An Agenda Topic must include all previous resolutions relating to the subject. When a specific resolution is submitted, it must specifically include the wording of any previous resolutions, in order to alleviate the presumption the previous resolutions are rescinded in total.

08-7

RESOLVED that the fifth “resolved” clause of Resolution 06-02 which addresses criteria required to have NFPA’s support in a state’s regulation proposal, shall be amended in its entirety to read as follows:

FURTHER RESOLVED, that NFPA shall not be permitted to support any regulatory proposal, even if asked by a majority of the member associations in that state, if such regulatory proposal does not contain at least four of the five following standards:

NOW, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the remaining portions of Resolution 06-02 shall remain as stated as well as Resolution 07-05 in its entirety.

08-5

RESOLVED, that the Model Plan for Voluntary Paralegal Regulation be adopted in support of NFPA's regulation policy as a generic, easily adaptable model for voluntary paralegal regulation.

07-8

BE IT RESOLVED, that the Model Plan for Paralegal Licensure, as amended, is hereby adopted in support of NFPA’s regulation policy and in place of the previously adopted Model Act for Paralegal Licensure.

07-5

NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the first bullet point under the fourth “resolved” clause of Policy 06-02 which addresses the minimum standards that a regulation proposal must have for NFPA to support such proposal, shall be amended in its entirety to read as follows:

“• Formal education requirements consistent with Policies 92-M1 and 06-06; and”

06-2

RESOLUTION: To

(1) provide an NFPA statement that NFPA is to actively promote regulation of the paralegal profession and that its preferred form of regulation is mandatory licensure;

(2) setting forth minimum standards that any regulation proposal should have in order for NFPA to support a local associations efforts to establish or oppose a regulatory scheme in its jurisdiction;

(3) amending Policy 97M-2 to state that although NFPA’s preferred form of regulation is licensure and specialty licensure, it may support any other form of regulation so long as such regulatory proposal contains all of the minimum standards set forth herein;

(4) reconfirm that NFPA will not promote any regulatory scheme within a jurisdiction without the invitation and support of a majority of local associations covering that jurisdiction for the regulatory scheme proposed and, where a jurisdiction is not covered by a local association, NFPA will only respond to a regulatory proposal currently under consideration in such a jurisdiction by stating its policies, guidelines and minimum standards concerning regulation of the paralegal profession;

(5) provide that NFPA will support a local association’s proposal for a regulatory scheme within its jurisdiction that contains the minimum standards stated herein but is less than licensure, even though a more restrictive regulatory scheme containing such minimum standards has been proposed by others in that jurisdiction;

(6) to have the board of directors of NFPA call for the revision of the Model Act for Paralegal Licensure to make it more user friendly, streamlined and updated to become consistent with the minimum standards set forth herein; and

(7) to have the board of directors of NFPA appoint an Ad Hoc Committee to prepare for adoption at the next convention, a Model Act that includes all of the minimum standards as set forth herein, but which is able to be easily modified for use in any form of regulation that a member may wish to propose in its state.

WHEREAS, pursuant to Policy 94M-11, Policy 98-1; and the Model Act for Paralegal Licensure NFPA endorses the implementation of regulation to establish standards for all paralegals on a state-by-state basis insofar as its implementation is consistent with the NFPA Mission Statement and expands the utilization of paralegals to deliver cost efficient legal services as determined by NFPA member associations in the affected jurisdictions; and

WHEREAS, NFPA has an adopted policy of promoting regulation, and that it has been allowed to promote its preferred form of regulation, mandatory licensure and specialty licensure; and

WHEREAS, NFPA has not actively promoted regulation as strongly as it could and should be doing; and

WHEREAS, although NFPA is permitted to promote its preferred form of regulation, mandatory licensure and specialty licensure, NFPA should clarify its policy that NFPA can support any other form of regulation being proposed in a state if asked to offer support by a majority of the member associations in that state, so long as the requirements set forth in the regulatory proposal is consistent with the minimum standards set forth herein; and

WHEREAS, NFPA has a policy that it can support regulation proposed in a state so long as the proposed regulation is consistent with the policies of NFPA, and which such authority is further limited in that if a member association is located in a state where regulation is being proposed, NFPA can only promote regulation in that state if asked by a majority of the member associations in that state; and

WHEREAS, NFPA has over the years developed minimum standards in the form of educational standards, CLE standards, character and fitness standards, proficiency based testing requirements in connection with regulation, as well as grandparenting criteria; and

WHEREAS, NFPA needs to establish a standard set of minimum standards that must be present in any regulatory proposal; and

WHEREAS, NFPA’s Model Act is not a very user-friendly guidance document; and

WHEREAS, in order to be more responsive to its members needs, NFPA needs to have available a Model Act that is easily adaptable to any form of regulation that a member association may wish to propose in its state.

NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that Policy 01S-14 be amended as follows: that NFPA will actively promote regulation of the paralegal profession generally by providing information as to NFPA’s preferred form of regulation of mandatory licensure and specialty licensure and its preference of a four-year degree being the requirement for entry into the paralegal profession, and

FURTHER RESOLVED, that NFPA and its board of directors shall not initiate the introduction of any proposal to regulate paralegals in any jurisdiction but, may educate and inform others regarding the existence, size, strength of NFPA, its regulation policy, and its resources, including but not limited to, NFPA's paralegal definition, education policy, minimum standards for paralegal regulation, publications, models promulgated, PACE, etc.; and

FURTHER RESOLVED, that NFPA may support or oppose, as appropriate, any legislative, judicial, administrative, or other regulatory activity introduced, provided that form of regulation proposed in a state is supported or opposed, as appropriate, by a majority of the voting members of NFPA associations in that state, or in any jurisdiction where NFPA is not represented, and subject to the following:

• That NFPA can support any regulatory proposal only if it includes all of the minimum standards set forth herein; and

• That NFPA cannot support opposition to a regulatory proposal that is consistent with NFPA's minimum standards set forth herein, but may support a counter proposal supported by a majority of the member associations in the state that contains the required minimum standards, but is less restrictive than the original proposal; and

• Formal educational requirements consistent with the requirements necessary to sit for PACE, as outlined in Policy 03-3, except that for those individuals that are seeking qualification with a two-year degree, the number of years of substantive paralegal experience that must accompany that two-year degree to be eligible to apply for regulation shall be left to the drafter of the regulation proposal, but shall be a minimum of two years of substantive paralegal experience, and while recognizing that a person who is not regulated could not perform substantive paralegal work, the proposal would need to include an “apprentice” type exception to allow that individual with a two-year degree to perform the requisite substantive paralegal work to become eligible to apply for regulation; and

• Passage of a proficiency based exam, as promulgated by a national paralegal organization, a state or commonwealth, an accredited educational institution, a national, state or local bar association or any additional testing to be reviewed or approved by NFPA; and

• Meet a standard of character and fitness consistent with what is required to sit for PACE and to maintain the RP credential; and

• Mandatory CLE requirement, although the specific number of hours to be earned shall be left to the determination of the drafters of the regulatory proposal; and

• A grandparenting provision allowing for individuals with a particular number of years of substantive paralegal experience to be eligible to apply for whatever form of regulation is being proposed without having to satisfy the formal education and proficiency based exam requirements. The specific number of years of substantive paralegal experience needed, and whether or not a sunset provision for eligibility under the grandparenting provision is to be included in the proposal, shall be left to the drafters of the proposal.

FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Model Act for Paralegal Licensure shall be amended to make that guidance document more user-friendly, streamlined and consistent with the minimum standards set forth herein; and

FURTHER RESOLVED, that a new Model Act shall be developed and presented for adoption at the next NFPA convention, said Model Act including the minimum standards as set forth herein, and the Model Act being developed generically to allow for easy modification for use for any form of regulation that may be proposed; and

FURTHER RESOLVED, that this Resolution amends all regulation policy.

01s-14

BE IT RESOLVED that current regulation policy be amended to state that NFPA recommends, rather than mandates, its criteria; and

FURTHER RESOLVED, that NFPA and its board of directors shall not initiate the introduction of any proposal to regulate paralegals in any jurisdiction but, may educate and inform others regarding the existence, size, and strength of NFPA and its resources, including but not limited to, NFPA's paralegal definition, education policy, regulation policy, publications, models promulgated, PACE, etc.

FURTHER RESOLVED, that NFPA may support or oppose, as appropriate, any legislative, judicial, administrative, or other regulatory activity introduced, provided that form of regulation proposed in a state is supported or opposed, as appropriate, by a majority of the voting members of NFPA associations in that state and is not inconsistent with NFPA policy on education, ethics, disciplinary rules and proficiency-based testing; and

FURTHER RESOLVED, that this Resolution amends all regulation policy.

97m-1

WHEREAS, the National Federation of Paralegal Associations ("NFPA") adopted Resolution 92-M-1 endorsing two-tiered licensing as its preferred form of regulation; and

WHEREAS, the Regulation Review Committee drafted a Model Act for Licensure and Specialty Licensure which was adopted by NFPA through Resolution 95-3; and

WHEREAS, comments on the Model Act for Licensure and Specialty Licensure were solicited and received by NFPA; and

WHEREAS, the Regulation Review Committee decided it was necessary to update the definition of licensure to reflect current NFPA policy and make the definition specific to the paralegal profession.

THEREFORE, NOW BE IT RESOLVED, that NFPA accepts the work product of the Regulation Review Committee and adopts the attached revised Model Act for Licensure and Specialty Licensure; and

FURTHER RESOLVED, that NFPA adopts the following definition for Licensure of Paralegals:

As the process by which an agency or governmental entity authorizes general practice in the paralegal profession and the use of the title "Paralegal", to individuals meeting predetermined qualifications that include:

(a) an educational requirement;

(b) the passage of a proficiency based examination;

(d) adherence to a Code of Ethics; and,

(e) other criteria as required by the agency or governmental entity.

FURTHER RESOLVED, that this resolution shall supplement Resolution 95-3.

97m-2

THEREFORE, NOW BE IT RESOLVED, that NFPA does hereby continue to endorse a two-tier regulatory scheme consisting of licensing and specialty licensing programs with minimum education and ethical standards providing for an expanded role of practice for qualifying paralegals;

FURTHER RESOLVED that NFPA, in order to advocate NFPA's two-tier regulation policy, may support or oppose, pursuant to NFPA regulation policy, as appropriate, any legislative, judicial, administrative or other regulatory activity introduced; and

FURTHER RESOLVED that NFPA's endorsement of the two-tier licensing regulatory scheme as its preferred form of regulation shall not restrict any paralegal association from determining whether it prefers an alternative method of regulation, if any, which may be appropriate to meet the needs of any member association. NFPA may support such associations to the extent possible in any form of regulation which expands the paralegal profession and is not inconsistent with NFPA's preferred form of two-tiered licensing; and

FURTHER RESOLVED that NFPA may support any form of regulation proposed in a state provided that it is supported by a majority of the voting member NFPA associations in that state, and provided that the criteria for such regulation is not inconsistent with NFPA established policy on education, ethics, disciplinary rules and proficiency-based testing.

FURTHER RESOLVED, that the charge having been met, Resolution 96-M-2 is hereby rescinded.

95-3

WHEREAS, NFPA Resolution 94M-10 charged the Standing Committee for the Delivery of Paralegal Services ("Committee") with revising the Model Guidelines for Licensure and Specialty Licensure through dissemination of additional related information to member associations and reasonable periods for comment; and

WHEREAS, the Committee upheld the deadlines imposed by 94M-10 and hereby submits a revised Model Act entitled, "Model Act for Paralegal Licensure"; and

WHEREAS, the Model Act submitted by the Committee reflects NFPA's regulation policy as stated in Resolution 92M-1.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Model Act for Paralegal Licensure ("Model Act") be adopted in support of NFPA's regulation policy; and

FURTHER RESOLVED, that, in accordance with Resolution 92M-1, NFPA and its board of directors will not initiate the introduction of any proposal to regulate paralegals in any jurisdiction; but, in order to advocate NFPA regulation policy, may use this Model Act to support or oppose, as appropriate, any legislative, judicial, administrative or other regulatory activity; and

FURTHER RESOLVED, that, the Model Act will be provided to a non-member as a response to formal regulatory activity within that non-member's state and NFPA member association(s), if any, within that state must be informed that the Model Act will be provided to a non-member and advised of said non-member's identity.

92m-1

RESOLVED that NFPA endorses the implementation of regulation of all paralegals on a state-by-state basis insofar as its implementation is consistent with the Mission Statement and expands the utilization of paralegals to deliver cost-efficient legal services as determined by NFPA member association in the affected jurisdiction.Specifically, paralegals in the affected jurisdictions must be able to perform in an expanded capacity from that which paralegals were performing prior to implementation of regulation; and

FURTHER RESOLVED, that NFPA and its board of directors will not initiate the introduction of any proposal to regulate paralegals in any jurisdiction; but, in order to advocate NFPA regulation policy, may support or oppose, as appropriate, any legislative, judicial, administrative or other regulatory activity; and

FURTHER RESOLVED, that NFPA does hereby endorse a two-tier regulatory scheme consisting of licensing and specialty licensing programs as its preferred form of regulation. The licensing programs must contain minimum standards and provide for an expanded role of practice for qualifying paralegals, contain provisions for a method of consumer redress, and contain a CLE provision requiring a minimum of 3 hours per year continuing education in a legal or specialty field; and