Paraprofessional working group delays vote on rules

The State Bar’s Paraprofessional Program Working Group was scheduled to vote on the potential licensees’ code of conduct this week but the process came to a halt over the number of controversial rules.

The group’s subcommittee designated all but nine of the 71 rules for a group vote, meaning they will all be considered in one resolution. During the committee’s meeting Monday, the members decided to add three more to be discussed and voted on individually.

Committee member Carolin Shining asked why the 71 rules were not all being voted on individually.

“This is one of the most important parts of our program, if not the most important part,” Shining said. “This will discuss and describe how everybody does everything henceforth forever.”

She said she saw dozens of potentially controversial rules, far more than the nine identified by the subcommittee. Pressed by committee chair and 1st District Court of Appeal Justice Ioana Petrou about which rules Shining wished to designate for individual vote, Shining identified 11 and mentioned throughout the meeting that she was confused about some of the rules and what they meant.

Shining’s motion to table the vote entirely failed.

Ultimately the group decided on 12 rules considered controversial that will be voted on individually. Among them are those that relate to public disclosure of nonlawyer status, fee collection and minority interest in law firms.

Petrou asked Shining if she had told the committee which rules she wished to vote on individually ahead of Monday’s meeting.

“Your honor, I had things to do with my children so that I was unavailable to get to the internet, much less I was running around with a band,” Shining said. “I made scrambled eggs for 150 kids.”

“Not to cut you off, but we are very short on time, so let’s focus on the list, not your activities,” Petrou interrupted.

Though Shining’s motion to postpone the vote did not go through, the committee ran out of time to discuss and vote on the most controversial rules anyway.

Many lawyers are strongly opposed to the paraprofessional program, including the Los Angeles County Bar Association and Public Counsel. Consumer Attorneys Association of Los Angeles president Genie Harrison has been outspoken about her opposition to the program.

Attorneys speaking during the public comment period at Monday’s meeting were critical of the rules, voicing concerns about representation in family law matters, oversight of paraprofessional licensees, conflicts of interest and whether the program provides access to justice.

Michael Barth, a staff attorney at Public Counsel, asked the working group to require paraprofessionals to give people the contact information for free services.

Leonard Sansanowicz, an employment attorney, expressed concern about paraprofessionals’ parent companies having conflicts of interest if they represent opposing parties in the same matter.

The working group is scheduled to meet next on Aug. 31, but a spokeswoman for the State Bar said Petrou and staff will meet to determine if the group should meet before then.