
In the world of law, attorneys often rely on a team of support staff to keep things running smoothly and manage their caseloads.
Administrative support is commonly provided by secretaries, while paralegals play a critical role in handling various legal tasks linked to case files.
Throughout my legal career, I have come to appreciate the invaluable contributions of both paralegals and secretaries—their hard work is essential for efficient law firm operations.
However, it’s important to acknowledge that paralegals, who do not receive the same level of legal education as attorneys, can make mistakes.
When inaccuracies arise, it is imperative for lawyers to take ownership of those errors, especially since their names appear on the final documents.
Importance of Oversight
One case from early in my career stands out as a prime example of this issue.
It seemed straightforward at first glance, but upon closer inspection of the documents, I quickly spotted significant inaccuracies.
The case hinged on a legal provision that was relatively obscure to me, requiring deeper research to understand it fully.
As I pored over the pertinent statutes and consulted various resources, I realized that the filed papers were missing critical timelines and vital information.
With this knowledge in hand, I set about drafting my opposition documents, meticulously referencing various cases and legal precedents to highlight the mistakes made by my counterpart.
Although courts sometimes offer leniency regarding minor technicalities to serve the interests of justice, my findings revealed that careless oversights had led to dismissals in other cases—an outcome that would certainly benefit my client, whose defense I was preparing.
Responsibility of Attorneys
Soon after, the attorney responsible for the flawed documents reached out to me.
He explained that the inaccuracies stemmed from drafts prepared by his paralegal.
He sought my consent to amend the documents, hoping to persuade the court to exercise some leniency and preserve his reputation with his client.
Typically, I’m inclined to work collaboratively in such situations, but this time, agreeing to the amended papers would mean my client would have to relinquish critical arguments.
So, I declined the request, putting my opponent in a tight spot.
He tried to address the errors in his reply papers, a common tactic among lawyers who attempt to patch up initial blunders.
However, this strategy often falls short, as reply documents are not designed to correct previous mistakes, further magnifying the original errors.
Conclusion
I found it perplexing that my adversary hadn’t caught these glaring mistakes; they were obvious enough that any practicing lawyer should have noticed them.
Given that he managed a bustling practice, it seems possible that this pressure contributed to his reliance on paralegals.
Still, since he was the one who signed off on the documents, he carried the bulk—if not the entirety—of the responsibility for the errors they contained.
To sum up, while paralegals are invaluable assets to any legal practice, this incident highlights the essential need for attorneys to closely oversee the work of their paralegals.
Lawyers must remain accountable for the quality of every document that bears their signature.
Neglecting this responsibility jeopardizes not only the integrity of their practice but also the best interests of their clients.
Source: Above The Law