I have very strong feelings about the subject of professionalism and I strongly support minimum standards for legal assistants, licensing, certification, regulation, and education. I think this is the only way the legal assistant profession will advance. In addition, the profession must define itself, because if we rely on others to define us, we will be relegated to a position of limited utility, subservience, and underutilization.

Because there are no standards in the profession now, there is a large range in salaries, job duties, and opportunities for advancement. We have tried for years to educate attorneys on the enhanced skills a paralegal brings to the legal team, yet most firms, in my experience, pay their legal secretaries more than legal assistants. These same firms would not dream of paying a legal assistant more than an associate, yet there is no reason or basis for the firm to implement a sliding scale, or parity, between non-attorney positions.

In addition, because there are no standards, opportunities for advancement are limited. For example, in my firm there are several "layers" of legal assistant staff, including: legal assistants, project assistants, project specialists, and file clerks. There are varying qualifications for each position; legal assistants are required to hold a bachelor's degree while other positions have fewer qualifications. I am classified as a legal assistant. I hold a B.A. degree, a paralegal certificate, am Board Certified in civil trial law, and have ten years experience. Yet, my billing rate is significantly less than some project specialists in my firm. Examples of this type of inequity are widespread throughout our profession and opportunities for advancement will remain limited so long as there are no standards for professionalism.

By establishing requirements for calling oneself a legal assistant, increasing our standards, requiring minimum continuing legal education, and requiring membership in a professional organization such as the LAD, we can promote professionalism and enhance the opportunities afforded a legal assistant. There are many people who will be opposed to this; in particular, the attorneys who currently employ us, those among us who do not have the education or ability to achieve whatever standards are set, and paralegals who are satisfied (some would say complacent) with their current situation. The opposition's presence should not deter the Division from forging ahead to form a consensus on regulation.