Professional Code of Ethics, Essay Example

The paralegal profession is one of many advantages and disadvantages. It comes with a broad range of specialties, a decent income, a steady job, and most importantly an exciting working environment for all who decide upon this profession. However, sometimes the areas of the job that are supposed to protect a paralegal are also the areas in which could ruin that same career. The Code of Ethics for a paralegal are quite stringent and must be adhered to in all forms on all days in order to protect the practicing firm, the attorneys, and the paralegal. Canon 3 is one of the hardest Code of Ethics to stand by in the paralegal profession.

Canon 3 states that “a paralegal must not: (a) engage in, encourage, or contribute to any act which could constitute the unauthorized practice of law; and (b) establish attorney-client relationships, set fees, give legal opinions or advice or represent a client before a court or agency unless so authorized by that court or agency; and (c) engage in conduct or take any action which would assist or involve the attorney in a violation of professional ethics or give the appearance of professional impropriety” (NALA 1). This code is one of the most important codes within the paralegal field as it helps the paralegal stay true to the guidelines of his or her profession. By being able to adhere to this code of ethics, paralegals do not run into any form of malpractice either for themselves or for the firm he or she is working with on a daily basis. This code is also important as it keeps the paralegal true to his or her work, his or her word, and the profession in general. There are many strengths of this code; however, one of the biggest is that, by abiding by this code, the paralegal cannot give legal opinions or practice law. The paralegal is not in the profession to do this type of work. He or she is in the profession in order to assist the attorneys. Unfortunately, even though the codes of ethics are put in place in order to protect the firm and the paralegal, there are always problems, too. One of the problems with Canon 3 is that it is very difficult for a paralegal not to give legal opinions or advice when clients are asking specific questions. There is a very fine line when it comes to what the paralegal can say in order to not violate this code. It is not the easiest one to keep at arm’s length. Just as there are advantages and disadvantages of the codes of ethics, there are some things that are not expected when going into the profession and understand the code of ethics. One of these is establishing attorney-client relationships. This is a little vague as a code of ethics description. Paralegals have to be able to develop relationships with the clients; however, what is considered attorney-client in this particular aspect? This is unexpected because it is a field in which relationships are important. However, whether unexpected or not, the code of ethics are still very concrete and very clear. Unfortunately, it seems as if not all paralegals take these code of ethics seriously.

The Code of Ethics is one of the most important aspects of the paralegal field. However, it seems as if a paralegal out of Utah, Mr. Gary Timothy Thompson did not take these ethics seriously. According to the article entitled “Paralegal Is Sent to Jail; He Violated Order by Practicing Law” by Brian Maffly, Mr. Thompson figured he could get away with undermining the code of ethics. In this case, a Utah paralegal who worked on divorce legal assistance decided to also do bankruptcies. He was held in contempt “for preparing and filing bankruptcy petitions, many of them faulty, on behalf of 30 to 35 debtors” (Maffly 1). Mr. Thompson was sentenced to two 30-day terms of jail time that would occur concurrently. He owes a “$2,000 fine, the $7,000 the bar association spent on the case and the $300 he charged a Vernal woman who bankruptcy he mishandled” (Maffly 1). The main ethical problem here is that he violated the Canon 3 Code of Ethics that states that no paralegal should contribute to any act which could constitute the unauthorized practice of law. Thompson was not authorized to practice law in the field of divorce or the field of bankruptcy; however, he did so anyway. In this particular case, the code of ethics adequately addresses the main ethical problem. The code of ethics states that no paralegal should engage in, encourage or contribute to the unauthorized practice of law. This is stated clearly in Canon 3 and should have been adhered to no matter what. However, Mr. Thompson made the mistake of thinking he was not going to get caught and went against the code of ethics.

This code of ethics is one of the most important when dealing with the paralegal profession. This is a code that I take very seriously and one that I will always abide by, whether it is difficult to do so or not. As stated above, sometimes it is difficult to set yourself apart from the things that are happening in the law firm; however, this code will help me in my chosen career because it is one that must be adhered to no matter what. I will be able to make decisions based on this code of ethics more easily by informing the client that I cannot practice law and that I cannot give any legal opinions. I would be able to make the decision to let the attorneys handle the questions I may not be able to answer if I felt that I would breach this code of ethics. By understanding the code of ethics, I am better able to do my job properly and make sound decisions in reference to my clients and the attorneys that I will work for on a daily basis.

In conclusion, the Code of Ethics for a paralegal is very straightforward. We, as paralegals, know what is expected of us and we know what we are allowed to do. However, even though these Codes of Ethics are straightforward, sometimes it is difficult for a paralegal to adhere to these codes based specifically on their day-to-day work. Paralegals know the law, they have been trained to do their job, and they understand the concepts of what may be going on in a case, but they must keep to themselves when the suspect they may end up giving legal advice. No paralegal should engage, encourage, or contribute to the unauthorized practice of law as they are not trained to do so nor are they given the option to do so ethically. The unauthorized practice of law is something that can easily be avoided if paralegals take the time to understand that they are not the lawyers; they are helpers to those lawyers and play a large role, but they must adhere to the policies and the Code of Ethics if they want to continue their professions.

Appendix 1

Canon 3.
A paralegal must not: (a) engage in, encourage, or contribute to any act which could constitute the unauthorized practice of law; and (b) establish attorney-client relationships, set fees, give legal opinions or advice or represent a client before a court or agency unless so authorized by that court or agency; and (c) engage in conduct or take any action which would assist or involve the attorney in a violation of professional ethics or give the appearance of professional impropriety (NALA 1).

Appendix 2

Paralegal Is Sent To Jail; He Violated Order By Practicing Law

Salt Lake Tribune, The (UT) – Friday, August 8, 1997

Author: Brian Maffly the Salt Lake Tribune, Salt Lake Tribune

A Salt Lake City paralegal will spend August in Salt Lake County’s Oxbow jail after a 3rd District judge found him in contempt of court by practicing law, in violation of an injunction.

Gary Timothy Thompson, 34, thought he escaped the jurisdiction of Utah state courts by shifting his legal-assistance practice from divorces to bankruptcies, which are handled in federal court.

But Judge Tyrone Medley held Thompson in contempt for preparing and filing bankruptcy petitions, many of them faulty, on behalf of 30 to 35 debtors. Last week, Medley ordered Thompson to jail for violating a court order barring him from engaging in “the authorized practice of law.”

Medley gave the paralegal an additional 30 days for not appearing at his April 11 trial. Thompson claimed a mail foul-up kept him from getting notice of the trial date.

The judge’s July 28 ruling culminated the Utah State Bar’s six-year effort to shut down the business of the elusive Thompson, who prolonged the case by dodging process servers, according to court papers. When the bar began investigating Thompson, he was on probation for a 1990 witness-tampering conviction.

Better Use of Jail: Thompson’s attorney, Bruce Oliver, on Wednesday asked the judge to release his client, arguing the paralegal is likely to prevail in his appeal to the Utah Supreme Court. And limited bed space in Salt Lake County’s jails would be better put to use by incarcerating felons rather than someone guilty of filing court papers without a law license.

“That may be extremely offensive to this court and to the legal profession,” argued Oliver, “but it is not dangerous to society.”

Medley rejected Oliver’s request, but the judge did adjust the sentences so that Thompson’s two 30-day terms would run concurrently. He still owes a $2,000 fine, the $7,000 the bar association spent on the case and the $300 he charged a Vernal woman whose bankruptcy he mishandled.

In November 1994, Medley issued a default judgment against Thompson, his wife, Emily Sutton, and their firm, known as Legal Access Group. The court concluded Thompson was practicing law without a license by charging people up to $100 to prepare and file divorce pleadings.

Thompson and Sutton were ordered to stop the “unauthorized practice of law,” but bar investigators learned the two were back in business within a month, preparing divorce papers and filing bankruptcy petitions, according to bar attorney Sandra Steinvoort.

Sutton was found in violation of the injunction last year, but she was not jailed.

Responding to Ad: Julie Heppler of Vernal retained Thompson for $300 last year to file bankruptcy papers after responding to an ad in the Big Nickel, the bar alleged. Thompson’s ad made the claim, “over 5,000 Utah clients served.”

The bar never has alleged Thompson billed himself as an attorney, although no one disputes he filled out legal pleadings for clients.

“The federal bankruptcy code provides that nonattorneys can prepare bankruptcy pleadings,” Oliver said. “The [state’s] definition of practicing law cannot preclude something that is authorized by federal statute.”

Given the inaccessibility of the courts for many citizens, there is a need for low-cost legal assistance, Oliver argued. On behalf of another client, Manti paralegal Benton Petersen, Oliver challenged the state’s definition of the unauthorized practice of law as unconstitutionally vague.

In an April ruling in the Petersen case, the Utah Supreme Court upheld Utah’s statute. Selecting forms is a method of giving legal advice, subject to regulation, the bar contends.

Litigants may get affordable legal help from the likes of Thompson, Steinvoort said, but they may unwittingly waive important rights and blow filing deadlines.

“What Gary does is problematic because he doesn’t do the detailed work,” Steinvoort said. “In divorce cases, he doesn’t record liens on the equity on homes. It’s only a matter of time before these things blow up.”

Works Cited

Maffly, Brian. “Paralegal Is Sent To Jail; He Violated Order By Practicing Law.” The Salt Lake Tribune. 8 Aug. 1997. Web. 10 April 2012.

National Association of Legal Assistants. NALA Code of Ethics and Professional Responsibility. NALA, 2008. Web. 10 April 2012