A lawyer who employs a paralegal should facilitate the paralegal's participation in appropriate continuing education and pro bono publico activities

• Pages: 20-21

Page 20

from a particular case or class of cases from a specific client); Va. St. Bar St. Co mm. of Legal

Ethics, Op. 885 (1987) (a nonlawyer may be paid based on the percentage of profits from all

fees collected by the lawyer). Likewise, a lawyer engaged in a particularly profitable

specialty of legal practice is not prohibited from compensating the paralegal who aid s

materially in that practice more handsomely than the compensation generally awarded to

paralegals in that geographic area who work in law practices that are less lucrative. Indeed,

any effort to fix a compensation level for paralegals and prohibit great compensation wo uld

appear to violate the federal antitrust laws. See, e.g., Goldfarb v. Virginia State Bar, 421

U.S. 773 (1975).

▪ Paralegals may never be paid, directly or indirectly, for referring clients or legal work

to the attorney.

In addition to the prohibition on fee splitting, a lawyer may not pro vide direct or indirect

remuneration to a paralegal for referring legal matters to the lawyer. See Model Guideline

9; Michigan Guideline 7; North Carolina Guideline 7. See also, C   P E 

Conduct of Iowa S B A  L, 342 N.W. 2d 486 (Iowa 1984) (repriman d for

lawyer payment of referral fee); Trotter v. Nelson, 684 N.E.2d 1150 (Ind. 1997) (wrongful to

pay to nonlawyer five percent of fees collected from a case referred by the nonlawyer).

GUIDELINE 10: A         

participation in appropriate continuing education and pro bono publico activities.

COMMENT

▪ Promoting continuing education of paralegals promotes quality legal services and is

consistent with the obligation to maintain competence.

For many years the Standing Committee on Paralegals has advocated that formal paral egal

education generally improves the legal services rendered by lawyers e mploying paralegals

and provides a more satisfying professional atmosphere in which paralegals may work.

‘          

professional education is, therefore, appropriate because of the benefits to both the law

practice an           

maintain professional competence under Model Rule 1.1. See also M C EC 

Since these Guidelines were first adopted by the House of Delegates in 1991, several state

bar associations have adopted guidelines that encourage lawyers to promote the

professional development and continuing education of paralegals in their employ, including

Connecticut, Idaho, Indiana, Michigan, New York, Virginia, Washington, and West Virginia.

NALA E C            

               NFPA Guidelines,

C               

through education, training, work experience and continuing education.

▪ The quantity and quality of pro bono work is enhanced when paralegals are included.

The Standing Committee believes that similar benefits accrue to the lawyer and para legal if

the paralegal is included in the pro bono publico legal services that a lawyer must provide

under Model Rule 6.1 and, where appropriate, the paralegal is encouraged to provide such