17

In this hypothetical scenario lets say there was a law firm that has only one lawyer to file all paper work, make all court room appearances to represent the firm. All of his work, however preparing for cases and communicating with individuals is done by hundreds of legal experts who have not passed the bar. The law firm does not hide this fact.

Is this illegal? Is this done in practice on a smaller scale? Could one lawyer be actively involved in several different legal cases if legal experts who have not passed the bar are doing all the grunt work? What are the limitations of what a legal expert who has not passed the bar can do?

the1.9gpaProgrammer
  • 191
  • 1
  • 5
  • 23
    So like a paralegal? – amon Nov 09 '21 at 18:10
  • 7
    Your question reminds me of this rather fanciful work of fiction. – Kevin Nov 10 '21 at 02:44
  • 3
    Which jurisdiction are we talking about here? USA? – SQB Nov 11 '21 at 08:26
  • 1
    Isn't this the typical structure of all those law firms that advertise on TV saying how if you're in a wreck you need a check, or how dangerous 18 wheelers are, and that they don't charge you a dime unless they recover you money? They even have a local number, but then you find out they have offices all over the state, and even in other states. You will never speak with the attorney from the commercials or billboards, they are basically just a face for advertising. – Glen Yates Nov 12 '21 at 21:04

2 Answers2

41

A Lawyer may hire paralegals, clerks, secretaries, and other assistants. The lawyer may hire as many as s/he pleases, and assign them whatever tasks s/he chooses.

However, some kinds of documents may need to be signed by the lawyer (which ones will depend on the jurisdiction, in the US on the state). During the so-called "robo-signing scandal" it was held that, in some US states at least, a lawyer who signs certain kinds of documents without reviewing them has failed to perform the duties imposed on the lawyer by the law, and the documents may be invalid. Large numbers of mortgage foreclosure cases were dismissed when it became known that the lawyer signing relevant documents had not in fact reviewed them (or in some cases had not even signed them, but had permitted a non-lawyer to sign the lawyer's name).

In addition, some functions in some jurisdictions must be performed by an actual lawyer. For example, paralegals and other non-lawyers cannot validly give legal advice. Only a lawyer can represent a client in court. And so on.

I question whether one lawyer could in most kinds of practice keep up with the work of "hundreds" of non-lawyers, but that would depend on the kind of work done by the firm. In the US, some law firms are essentially collection agencies. There a single lawyer with many many assistants suffices, I understand, and that structure is not uncommon in the US.

David Siegel
  • 113,558
  • 10
  • 204
  • 404
  • 1
    @the1.9gpaProgrammer I do not use "singular they" under any circumstance whatsoever. I am fine with others who choose to use it in ther writing. – David Siegel Nov 12 '21 at 06:21
  • Really? Because that's virtually impossible. Structures like, "I don't get upset at someone just because they make a different choice" or "If someone found my wallet on the street, I'd hope they would try to get it back to me" are virtually impossible to consistently avoid. (And doing so serves no purpose whatsoever.) – David Schwartz Nov 12 '21 at 12:11
  • @David Yes really. I would write: "I don't get upset at someone just because he or she made a different choice" or "If someone found my wallet on the street, I'd hope that person would try to get it back to me". Often one can use "one". I wish people had agreed on a new, non-gendered singular pronoun. I favored "xi", possessive "xir", but I would have accepted any of the forms proposed. however, none achieved consensus. As to the point, it avoids ambiguity, but more importantly, in spite of its long history, singular they simply feels wrong to me, & I will not have it over my signature. – David Siegel Nov 12 '21 at 15:33
  • @DavidSiegel good job your feelings are the more important part of the decision-making here, given that using singular "they" in place of the neopronoun "s/he" where it is used in this answer would introduce no ambiguity whatsoever! – Will Nov 12 '21 at 17:41
  • I always get a bit queasy when I read in the news that someone "pleaded" guilty.

    • 2)If you're in charge, you can get to be secretary. Treasury Secretary of the United States. Clearly more congresscritters (There's a nice gender-neutral term for you!) ought to read The Intercept! https://theintercept.com/2017/01/25/mnuchin-lied-about-his-banks-history-of-robo-signing-foreclosure-documents/

    – user1521620 Nov 13 '21 at 19:49