MSBA PARALEGAL COMMITTEE
MEETING MINUTES
Held on Wednesday, January 27, 2010

The meeting was convened at 12:00 p.m. by Co-Chairs September Holmblad, PP, PLS and Sylvia Naim, RP. 

Introductions were made of persons present and joining by phone.

Attendees via in-person:  Co-Chairs:  September Holmblad and Sylvia Naim; MSBA Staff Liaison: Nancy Mischel; Committee Members:  Patti Keyes, Lynette Gilliland, PP, Leondra Hanson, Mary Beth Marti, and Jean Diekmann.   

Attendees via phone: Committee Members:  Lisa Scott, Steve Schneider, Michelle McCullough, Barb Peppersack, and Beth Sullivan.

Meeting Minutes from December 9, 2009 were approved with corrections.

Future Direction of Committee:

1. Certification:   Issues relating to MSBA President Brisbois’ meeting with us last month were discussed.  Barb Peppersack reported that Kentucky is continuing to look at voluntary certification, while Wisconsin is gearing up for presenting a proposal on licensure of paralegals to the legislature.  If such a proposal were accepted, this would be the first state to go beyond voluntary certification.  It was agreed that we would re-route our certification strategy, always keeping it on the agenda to avoid losing momentum. Committee members agreed to shift focus on utilization, educating attorneys regarding paralegals, and membership growth, then re-focus our efforts onto certification. Committee members also agreed to monitor other states’ certification news and that information would be funneled to co-chairs who would advise the entire committee. Barb Peppersack reported that NFPA is currently working on a basic certification exam.  Leondra Hanson reported that she heard from attendees at the recent AAfPE Conference that the Ohio certification program is not doing so well. In addition, any committee member who comes across any articles regarding other states’ certification plans or utilization of paralegals, should submit them to the co-chairs.  Co-Chairs will assemble and track this information.

1. Membership Growth:  Nancy advised there were approximately 151 paralegal members in the MSBA.  In response to questions about how a committee might become a section, Nancy advised the committee that in order for a committee to become a section, it needs at least 50 members to sign a petition and take it before the Assembly.  There are other requirements in the MSBA Bylaws as well, which Nancy will forward to us.  Discussion was held to update and complete a Paralegal Committee Brochure for circulation.  Michelle McCollough indicated that at one point she had started working on an MSBA Paralegal Committee Brochure, but it was never completed.  Michelle agreed to distribute the unfinished brochure to the co-chairs or committee members. Mary Beth Marti indicated the MPA is willing to include a line item on its application for requesting MSBA membership information.  Nancy advised that we could request funds be included in the MSBA budget for our committee, however, the deadline for the 2010-11 budget is fast approaching.  Nancy further advised that the committee could submit a request for unbudgeted funds outside of the regular budgeting process, but the request would need to address why the funds were not requested during the regular budgeting process.  Sylvia and September will work with Nancy regarding future budget requests.  Members agreed to work on membership issues and utilization of paralegals.  There was also some discussion about committee members being active in other sections.   

News, Announcements, and Association Updates:  Nothing to report. 

Current Projects:
a.         Website, Coordinator: Michelle McCullough had nothing to report.

b.         Local/District bar membership, Coordinators Penny Cierzan and Jean Diekman had nothing to report
c.         Articles in General: Lynette Gilliland, PP and Helen Federline were featured in an article in Minnesota Lawyer on Virtual Paralegals.  Lynette will check with author of article to get permission to link or post article on the committee website. 
d.         Paralegal-related CLEs:  Nothing to report.
e.         Haiti Relief: Michelle McCullough informed the committee on MSBA efforts to raise funds via website 
f.          Joint Paralegal Panel at North Hennepin Community College:  September Holmblad, PP, advised the committee of a note she received requesting members to join their panel.  More info will go out to members.

OTHER ITEMS: 

1. Mary Beth Marti mentioned partnering with MPA and Lorman Education Services with respect to discounts. 
2. Discussion regarding writing an article or column in each issue of MSBA Bench & Bar regarding utilization and certification, something uniform; Nancy mentioned MSBA In Action and Tips and Traps, something short.

ACTION ITEMS:

1. Prepare for strategic planning at next meeting. 
2. Review questions previously provided. 
3. Work on Paralegal Committee Brochure.  After some discussion that this committee needs to carve out a “niche” to offer something to paralegal members that is different from what they get within their own associations. 

POST ADJOURNMENT DISCUSSION:  Nancy advised September that she could coordinate a presentation with the membership/marketing people at a future committee meeting to go over the MSBA membership benefits that will take place at the February meeting.  September asked Mary Beth Marti to submit the request regarding Lorman education in writing and to provide additional information to the chairs. 

Next Meeting:  February 24, 2010 at noon at the MSBA Offices in City Center. 

Meeting adjourned at 1:10 p.m.           

Minutes prepared by Lynette Gilliland, PP, PLS, Sylvia Naim, RP, September D. Holmblad, PP, PLS and Nancy Mischel.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

MSBA PARALEGAL COMMITTEE
MEETING MINUTES
Held on Wednesday, December 9, 2009

The meeting was convened at 12:00 p.m. by Co-Chairs September Holmblad, PP, PLS and Sylvia Naim, RP. 

Introductions were made of persons present and joining by phone.

Attendees via in-person:  Co-Chairs:  September Holmblad and Sylvia Naim; MSBA Staff Liaison: Nancy Mischel; Committee Members:  Penny Cierzan, and Jean Diekman.  Guests:  Leo Brisbois, MSBA President, and Tim Groshens, MSBA Executive Director; and Mary Beth Marty. 

Attendees via phone: Committee Members:  Leondra Hanson, Steve Schneider, Helen Federline, Michelle McCullough, Lynette Gilliland, PP, Henry Evans, Sally Dahlquist, Patricia Keyes, and Steven Schneider. 

Certification Proposal:  Discussion from 12:10 to 12:50. 

Immediate Past Chair, Michelle McCullough, and current Co-Chairs, September and Sylvia, led off the discussion by discussing (1) where we have been, (2) where we are now, and (3) where we want to be. 

Michelle gave an outline of the history of paralegal certification and state bar association regulations, indicating what our committee has done, where we are at, and the proposal currently before the MSBA to create a task force.  Michelle discussed why some form of paralegal regulation is needed; including the growth of the profession, the ambiguity of the job description and the confusion surrounding the current use of certificate and other regulatory terms. She added that the committee had conducted surveys of the Minnesota paralegals and attorneys and thought the first place to start was voluntary certification rather than licensure, even though licensure may be the ultimate goal. Michelle said it was important to the committee to have the MSBA support the certification proposal and therefore the committee had asked the MSBA to create a task force.

Sylvia added to the discussion with explanation of association certifications including the PACE/RP (Registered Paralegal) certification by NFPA (National Federation of Paralegal Associations).  Sylvia discussed why she decided to become certified and take the PACE exam through NFPA.  In order to maintain her RP status, she is required to re-certify every 2 years, with 12 CLE credits, including 2 ethics. Sylvia stated there are currently four ABA-Accredited Paralegal schools/programs in the State of MN, and they are: Minnesota Paralegal Institute; Hamline University; North Hennepin Community College; and Inver Hills Community College.  Helen Federline stated that there are actually 5 ABA-approved schools, with the fifth one being Winona State.  Sylvia continued to explain the committee’s reason for wanting certification in the State of Minnesota, by stating that there are quite a few fly-by-night programs that offer a paralegal certificate in just a few days of classes.  Because there are no educational or work standards in place for Paralegals, these fly-by-night programs can do this and get away with it.

September explained the PP certification (Professional Paralegal) by NALS, and also mentioned two other certifications, CLA/CP (The National Association of Legal Assistants – NALA) and the AACP (The American Alliance of Paralegals, Inc. (a certification based on education and experience, not an exam).  September discussed where we want to be, i.e., appointment of a task force (potentially made up of some committee members, attorneys, and educators) to develop a plan to certify paralegals in Minnesota; develop guidelines and standards for paralegal certification; develop a program budget; and ultimately create a Minnesota Certified Paralegal exam.  September further explained that the committee wrote the position paper and requested a separate task force based on instructions from our previous staff liaison.  She mentioned that the task force could be made up of committee members, or the committee could continue to the next step.  She mentioned that the committee felt that it needed some “buy-in” from the MSBA before focusing on the details of creating an exam due to the amount of work involved.  Sylvia added that it might be possible for the committee to forego the idea of a task force, because of the qualified representative group that make up this committee, including educators; attorneys; practicing paralegals; etc.  She continued to say that this would be up to the committee to decide and most likely it will be discussed and decided at the next committee meeting in January.

            Discussion was held on a handful of states that have some form of certification:  Ohio, North Carolina, Texas, California and Florida.  Penny shared some statistics regarding the North Carolina exam.  Leo pointed out that these states, he believed, also are mandatory attorney bar association states.  He explained that the states are involved in their operation and funding.  He asked, in terms of Minnesota, what other degree granting programs are out there.  Response was that several have ABA approved paralegal programs:  Inver Grove Heights, North Hennepin, Minnesota Paralegal Institute, and other non ABA approved because of on-line programs: Minnesota School of Business, Winona State, Moorhead, Lake Superior, and others such as Kaplan and University of Arizona who have online paralegal courses.

            Tim asked if we were looking for a mandatory program, or voluntary and September replied that we were initially looking for a voluntary program and discussed Wisconsin’s issues regarding licensure and other committee members shared their input.  Sylvia stated that she recalled that one of the reasons the Wisconsin Supreme Court denied the petition for mandatory licensure was because they had not involved the State Bar.  Helen stated that the Wisconsin Supreme Court denied the request due to economics and recommended that the various associations go back and develop a voluntary program based on other bar associations. 

            Leo and Tim talked about the existing certification programs that are run by the following sections:  Civil Litigation, Labor and Employment, Criminal Law and Real Property Law.   Sections charge separate dues and therefore are able to underwrite any cost overruns from section funds should their certification program not break even.  There is a directive from the assembly that certification programs be self-sustaining; funds cannot come from the MSBA general fund  This could be a problem for the paralegal certification program unless we could partner with a few MSBA sections that might be willing to underwrite any cost overruns.

            Tim stated that it takes a “critical mass” to get a program going, he wasn’t sure what it was but thought it could be 350 interested persons.  Leo suggested our task force meet with other “overlapping” MSBA committees or sections, particularly Professionalism and Practice Management and Marketing, for their perspectives and to perhaps gain their approval or partnership.  Invite some of those attorneys to be involved and help develop the details.  This would be a short term goal.  Long terms goals would be to determine who is the appropriate certifying entity (he discussed the Supreme Court), staffing, and ultimately funding (staffing and overhead need to be considered).  Can we generate revenues to support the certification—we cannot tap into the general fund.  There was additional discussion about how some committees are being asked to cut back on their staff time so that staff can assist in other areas, i.e., Legislative.  This is why no additional resources can be committed to creating a new Task Force this bar year.

            Leo’s last thought was that if certification is voluntary that perhaps the committee should get input from all the education bodies because their students will be affected.  He then left it to us to decide if we want to form a partnership with other sections and ABA approved schools, and that he would be happy to meet with us again after the first of the year, perhaps February or March, to see where we are going with it. 

            Michelle asked Leo what were his thoughts regarding licensure.  He stated that lawyers are licensed; teachers are licensed, accountants are licensed, nurses are licensed, engineers are licensed.  He believes that licensure is a natural progression of any profession. So he felt that we were on track in considering this issue as something down the road and agreed that voluntary is the first step and licensing is something down the path 5, 10, even 15 years from now. 

            He also left us with the suggestion that it would be helpful to our committee to grow our numbers in Minnesota, primarily within MPA, which would hopefully boost membership within MSBA.  MPA membership of 1200 state-wide will not generate the attention of MSBA as much as a higher membership number would.

            Sylvia and September thanked the guests for meeting with us, and for their input, and excused them at this time.  Sylvia suggested that we devote our January meeting to reviewing this discussion, our plans and formulate future goals.

Minutes:  Minutes of the September, 2009 meeting were approved as distributed.

News, Announcements, and Association Updates:  Sylvia Naim, RP, was appointed as the Regional Vice President – Central for the IPMA; and Helen Federline was re-elected as the NFPA Region 2 Director and appointed a Regional Director Chair. 

Current Projects:
a.         Website, Coordinator: Michelle McCullough, provided suggested revisions regarding faulty links and other links to September, Sylvia, and Nancy to the current website.  The next step is to set up tabs for additional materials and review one each month.  Website recommendations should be sent to Michelle. 
b.         Local/District bar membership, Coordinators Penny Cierzan and Jean Diekman, reported on district bar response, enthusiasm for outreach to paralegals in outstate areas, use this to market utilization of paralegals, and discussion of paralegal associations to advertise MSBA Paralegal Committee membership to their members.  Several districts indicated that they will consider a bylaw amendment to include paralegals as members.  Proposed language from other district bar associations that allow this, should be sent to these district bar association in January at the latest. 
c.         Articles in General: nothing to report
d.         Paralegal-related CLEs:  Helen reported on the “9 days in June” MSBA program offering CLEs to districts, and their willingness to partner with us to do that.  Helen will put forward some information to the General Practice/Small section regarding partnering with this section to offer a paralegal utilization seminar.  Helen indicated that she should be free to travel in June.  Suggestion was also made to offer a seminar in collaboration with MPA. 

There was additional discussion regarding approaching MPA and others about collecting MSBA membership dues. 

Strategic planning discussion regarding future direction of the committee was tabled. 

ACTION ITEMS: (prior to and for the next meeting):

1. September and Sylvia to get the minutes for this meeting out to the committee as soon as possible for their review.

1. Committee members are to come prepared to discuss their thoughts, suggestions and recommendations for the committee to proceed with a voluntary state certification.  The goal of the January 27th meeting is for the committee to decide how they are going to proceed with the voluntary state certification issue.

1. Any and all updates and any additional information regarding local district bar associations should be sent to Penny and Jean.

Next Meeting:  January 27, 2010 at noon at the MSBA Offices in City Center. 

Meeting adjourned at 1:25 p.m.           

Minutes prepared by Lynette Gilliland, PP, PLS, Sylvia Naim, RP, September D. Holmblad, PP, PLS, Michelle McCullough, and Nancy Mischel.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

MSBA PARALEGAL COMMITTEE
MINUTES OF MEETING
Wednesday, September 30, 2009

Meeting convened at 12:10 p.m. by Co-Chairs September Holmblad, PP, PLS and Sylvia Naim, RP

Introductions were made of persons present and joining by phone.

Attendees via in-person: Penny Cierzan, John Kastan, Helen Federline, Jean Diekman, Michelle McCullough, Lynnette Gilliland, Debra Hatlestad, Nancy Mischel, September Holmblad and Sylvia Naim

Attendees via phone: Leondra Hanson, Steve Schneider, Lisa Scott and Barb Peppersack

There were no minutes of past meetings for review as formal minutes were not taken during the first part of 2009 as those meetings were devoted to working on the certification proposal.  Lynette agreed to take minutes. 

News and Announcements:  Sylvia Naim presented the history of certification/regulation attempts and the focus of the committee the last three years.

Current Projects were announced and the following Coordinators were assigned:

            Committee: District Bar Associations
            Coordinators: Jean Dickman and Penny Cierzan

• Previously, September had NW, Penny had NE, Henry had SW, Michelle SE and Jean had Central; everyone was asked to forward what information they can obtain to Penny. 

Ethics Article, Lynda Nelson wrote, was submitted to Bench and Bar; however, they won’t agree to publish the article unless it’s shortened.  The editor will be making contact with Lynda Nelson regarding her article.

• Previously, Michelle contacted Bench & Bar, September contacted the Minnesota Lawyer, and Sylvia contacted Law and Politics for publication of Lynda’s article. 

            Committee: Committee Website Pages, including Article Bank
            Coordinator: Michelle McCullough

• Every member was encouraged to submit articles or links to articles, to Michelle for posting to the website.
• Both Helen Federline and John Kastan have written articles in the past regarding paralegals, the profession, etc.  Both have agreed to reprint their articles and submit them to Michelle for posting on the website.
• Other potential publications for articles mentioned were, National Business Institute ~ Institute for Paralegal Education, National Reporter and Paralegal Today f/k/a Legal Assistant Today, NFPA, NALS and NALA.
• Other suggestions for submissions of articles or offerings of Paralegal–related CLEs, seminars or presentations were to the various MSBA sectionals, MN CLE, MPA and the various paralegal schools.

Paralegal Utilization seminars/presentations were also discussed.  Helen, Jean and Michelle all mentioned that seminars of this topic were done several years ago and the presentation materials for those seminars still exist.  Helen agreed to provide the committee with copies of past seminar materials/notes.  Content of the materials may need to be updated. 

Other Bar News: 

• 2010 MSBA Conference, “9 Days in June”. MSBA will bring the conference to members, instead of members going to MSBA.  There will be no cost to the conference; the only expense to members will be for the cost of food.
• A suggestion was made to approach the various law institutes to present on Paralegal Utilization.  Such as, Elder Law, Family Law, Real Estate, Employment and Probate.
• Helen agreed to coordinate with the Solo/Small firms section to co-sponsor a Paralegal Utilization seminar in conjunction with the MSBA convention.
• Frank Harris is the current director of MN CLE.
• There are currently 168 MSBA Paralegal members

Certification Proposal Status:

• Nancy Mischel, Bar Staff Liaison, advised on the status of Certification Proposal.
• MSBA would want the program to be self-funding and self-sustaining.  They looked at risk for MSBA, they will not underwrite costs. 
• MSBA feels the committee should assemble a task force to assemble data. 
• Nancy advised that the President has authority to appoint a task force and she will discuss this issue with him and report back. 
• The committee has recommended the task force consist of committee members, paralegals and attorneys, and possibly current and former judges.

Other Association Updates:  

• NALS Annual Education Conference, Irvine California, October 8-11, 2009
• IPMA 2009 Annual Conference and Expo, Orlando, Florida, October 14-17, 2009
• NFPA 2009 Annual Convention, October 29-November 1, 2009

Next Meeting:  October 28, 2009

Meeting adjourned at 1:25 p.m.