Recent announcements:
NALA Files Amicus Brief in the US Supreme Court
Note: Oral Arguments in Richlin v. Chertoff were held on
Wednesday, March 19. Visit the web site of the
US Supreme
Court for a transcript of the arguments.
Click here to
read the amicus brief
filed on the merits on January 11, 2008.
Click here to
read the amicus brief
filed on cert October 12, 2007
Click
here to read the petitioner's brief
Summary.
In a decision issued December 26, 2006, the United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit found that paralegal services are not compensable as
“attorney fees” at market rates under the Equal Access to Justice Act. The Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA) authorizes an award of fees and other
expenses to certain parties who prevail in adversary administrative proceedings
or in court against the United States.
In Richlin v. Chertoff, mistakes in contracts between petitioner Richlin
Security Service Company and the Department of Homeland Security resulted in the
substantial underpayment of Richlin employees. Richlin was a small business and
unable to pay its employees what they were owed. Following legal proceedings,
the Department of Transportation Board of Contract Appeals awarded Richlin the
amount of the additional wages, taxes and workers compensation premiums that
Richlin was required to pay. After prevailing on the merits, Richlin sought an
award of attorneys fees and other expenses under EAJA for time spent over nearly
nine years by lawyers and paralegals. The Department of Transportation Board of
Contract Appeals awarded attorney fees for attorney services but did not award
fees at market rates for paralegal services. Richlin appealed and a divided
panel of the Federal Circuit affirmed the ruling of the Department of
Transportation Board of Contract Appeals.
A petition for a writ of certiorari was filed on behalf of Richlin in June 2007.
An amicus curiae brief filed on behalf of NALA and the Paralyzed Veterans
of America was filed on October 12, 2007, by Amy Howe, Esq., and Kevin K,
Russell, Esq., of Howe & Russell, P.C. in support of Richlin, and urging the
Court to review this question. Cert has been granted by the Court.There are many issues before the court in its review of the decision of the
Federal Circuit including the provisions of the EAJA, numerous lower court
decisions, and the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Missouri v. Jenkins
in which it found that under the Civil Rights Attorney’s Fees Awards Act, 42
U.S.C. § 1988, paralegal services are a component of attorney’s fees and
compensable at market rates. In addition, four circuit courts -- Fourth,
Eighth, Eleventh, and DC – have concluded that paralegal services are
compensable under the Equal Access to Justice Act.
NALA’s brief reminded the court that we participated in the Missouri
v. Jenkins decision and provided details of the utilization of paralegals
throughout the United Sates. In 1989 when NALA filed the first amicus brief in
Missouri v. Jenkins there was an estimated 53,000 paralegals in the US.
Today, the Bureau of Labor Statistics reports that over 200,000 paralegal jobs
are held in the United States. The use of paralegals continues to be promoted
and encouraged when compensated at market rates as part of court-awarded
attorney fees. In addition, the public interest is served by encouraging
attorney use of paralegals when possible and practical.
State Certification . . .
|
| In 2006 and 2007, standards for paralegal
certification state entities were announced in Florida, North Carolina
and Ohio. The Paralegal Division of the State Bar of Texas also offers
a voluntary state certification program. The following links will open
the new rules for your information.
In addition, the Louisiana State Paralegal Association and the
Paralegal Association of Florida offer voluntary certification
programs for paralegals in the state. For details,
click here.
|
Professional
Issues . . .
Cases and Info . . . The following links are
to recent court opinions, or ethical rules that may be of
interest to you. This information appears on NALA Net.
Kansas Bar Association.
Official Standards and
Guidelines for the Utilization of Legal Assistants/Paralegals
in Kansas
as amended February 2004. File in pdf format.
Florida Supreme Court.
Provides that use of the terms legal assistant, paralegal
apply to those working under attorney supervision, or an
authorized business entity.
Michigan Supreme Court Rule 2.626,
effective January 1, 2001, provides
for legal assistant time in attorney fee awards. See the
NALA paper,
Definitions
of Terms for the State Bar of Michigan definition of
legal assistant/paralegal.
|
