State Bar group votes on paraprofessional oversight

The California State Bar Paraprofessional Program Working Group voted Tuesday on recommendations for developing an oversight body for the controversial paraprofessional program, one of the most highly debated aspects of the program.

According to the proposed structure, the 13-member committee would consist of one judge, two attorneys, three paraprofessionals, six public members and a paraprofessional educator.

The group would be responsible for either making recommendations for or directly approving integral aspects of the paraprofessional program, such as moral character reviews, rules of procedure and determining MCLE requirements.

One of the most frequently questioned aspects the governing body would have power over is paraprofessional discipline. In the wake of the fall of plaintiffs lawyer Thomas V. Girardi and the bankruptcy of his eponymous firm, some have questioned how the State Bar would be able to police an entirely new set of licensees.

The State Bar has acknowledged allegations it ignored reports of Girardi’s misconduct for years and vowed to make changes. On July 26, the State Bar announced the creation of a special committee to look specifically at attorney client trust accounts.

The California Supreme Court will ultimately retain control over license suspensions and revocations, but the paraprofessional governing body will make recommendations to the court about what to do with licensees.

The group’s discussion also included funding, especially for getting the program up and running. State Bar executive director Leah Wilson said during Tuesday’s meeting she is looking into philanthropic grant funding.

Committee member and Director of the Department of Consumer Affairs Kimberly Kirchmeyer pointed to instances where medical boards used loans from general funds to start programs and later repaid those debts. Wilson said this could be an option for the paraprofessional program.

Wilson made clear the paraprofessional program would not deplete funds used for attorney discipline and oversight.

Kirchmeyer also pointed to the oversight body’s proposed ability to develop, review and give final approval. She called the recommendation “unusual” and said boards typically do not see exam questions ahead of time.

The group removed the exam powers from the list of governance functions and will determine them at a later date but otherwise approved the recommendations for power.

The State Bar Board of Trustees, the California Supreme Court and the state Legislature all must approve the program before anything is implemented.