Columns

fall 2003 vol.9 no. 2                                                                                                                            Return to Contents
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

President's Message

Melissa Sherman, CLA

Once again LAD finds itself facing a year of challenges and changes. Our Board of Directors is up to the task and has already started implementing changes that began last year and tackling new issues. Having been a LAD member since 1993, I am honored and excited to be your President this year. I pledge to you that I will work hard and do my best to represent the Division membership.

As LAD continues to promote the professionalism of our chosen field, many issues confront us. Many local, state, and national associations require continuing legal education of their voting members so that their membership stays current on the ever changing facets of the law and are better able to assist the attorneys for whom they work and the public
they serve. LAD has joined these groups for the same reasons. If you have any questions about the continuing education requirement facing all active and associate members at the 2004-2005 membership renewal period, please contact me or your local Director.

The recent debate surrounding the Department of Labor’s proposed overhaul of the Fair Labor Standards Act, including the requirements for exempt and non-exempt employees, has been very significant to LAD members. Many LAD members currently receive overtime compensation from their employers and under the new proposals, paralegals are clearly defined in the exempt category. While employers may choose to continue the overtime compensation, they would not be required to do so. The House of Representatives passed the Department’s proposal on July 10, 2003. Several LAD members contacted the Board to find out why the Division did not take a public position on this issue – it is because we could not.

Keller v. State Bar of California is a 1990 U.S. Supreme Court case in which a group of California Bar members sued the state bar claiming that the bar’s expenditure of the members’ mandatory dues on activities that advanced political causes violated their rights to freedom of speech and association. In rendering their opinion, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the First Amendment does limit the permissible use of mandatory bar dues. They further explained that the bar was justified in regulating the legal profession and improving the quality of legal services; however, the bar may not fund activities of an ideological or political nature. Since there can be such a fine line between these issues, the State Bar of Texas has established a procedure by which the Office of the General Counsel must render an opinion to state whether the subject legislation could be seen to be of a political or ideological nature not associated with the core purposes of the bar as set forth in the State Bar Act. As the Department of Labor issue clearly falls outside the core purposes of the bar, LAD could not comment or take a position on it.

Another recent challenge for our profession has been the terminology struggle between “legal assistant” and “paralegal”. For years these terms have been interchangeable; however, there appears to be a trend toward creating a distinction between them. LAD recently conducted an online survey to identify our members opinions about the terminology. We received 1,023 responses. Although 44% of the respondents are currently titled “legal assistants”, compared to 41% of the respondents who are “paralegals”, 63% of the respondents prefer the term “paralegal”. Only 27% of the respondents wanted to keep the term “legal assistant”. Additionally, 58% of those responding believe the term “paralegal” should be used exclusively. Just 25% of the respondents want the terms to remain synonymous, and only 13% believe the term “legal assistant” should be used exclusively.

After having this data in our possession, LAD became aware that the Standing Committee on Legal Assistants of the American Bar Association had made a recommendation to the ABA to change their name to the Standing Committee on Paralegals. The Board decided to draft an informational letter to the ABA providing them with the statistical information from our survey to assist them with their decision. Our letter was submitted to the State Bar, and after receiving their approval, it was provided to the ABA before their annual conference. We have since been advised that the ABA did approve the name change as requested by their committee.
As you can see, there is a lot going on in our profession. Although LAD is sometimes limited in what we can or cannot do, I assure you that the Board is always moving forward on these issues to represent you and promote your opinions at every possible opportunity.

Texas Paralegal Journal © Copyright 2003 by the Legal Assistants Division, State Bar of Texas.

Top of Page