Paralegals or those persons who work as legal assistant earn an average of $44,000 in one year. These individuals can work in various settings such as law firms, corporate, government agencies or even run their own business. Paralegals do not provide legal advice, legal help, or free legal advice or represent someone a client in the court. They too cannot accept or name the case of a lawyer.

The main job of paralegal is to provide administrative help to lawyers from putting record sets to preparing and handling documents that lawyers need or even interviewing witnesses. Although paralegals do not perform the duties of lawyers, they do play a vital role in the legal profession.

If you are interested to do paralegal work, it is important that you have excellent research and writing skills, shows great attention to detail and a critical thinker. To help you in starting your career as a paralegal, it’s advisable that you consult online law dictionaries to familiarize yourself with terminologies used in legal system. In addition, to be a paralegal, you need to undergo training from vocational schools. It’s important to get your paralegal training from schools that are accredited by American Bar Association (ABA) because most law firms hire paralegals from schools who offer ABA accredited programs.

If you are wondering how much a paralegal work training cost, this depends on many factors; one is where your location is. To give you an idea, in California, paralegal trainings cost an average $650, if you’ll get it from a private college. On the other hand, a typical California community college offers it for around $115.00. After completing your training, you can your paralegal skills through the National Association of Legal Assistants (NALA) and you can start looking for work as a paralegal.

The American Bar Association defines paralegal as “a person qualified by education, training or work experience who is employed or retained by a lawyer, law office, corporation, governmental agency or other entity who performs specifically delegated substantive legal work for which a lawyer is responsible.”

With this definition, we can say that paralegal work involves administrative functions from organizing, filing, and retrieving of documents to photocopying and even to numbering of pages, all designed to help the lawyers. Depending on the employer, paralegal or legal assistant may also be tasked to interview witnesses or even draft legal documents.

To give you an clearer idea on what paralegals do, it’s important to be aware of how law is practice in the United Sates. As you see, the practice of law in the United States often falls under two categories – litigation and corporate. Litigation is the usual type of law where it usually involves two parties – the other party suing another party. Corporate on the other hand focuses on the dealings of the companies such as companies looking for companies to be acquired and looking for another company to be merged with. All these demand lawyers to have all the needed paperwork prepared.

If you will be doing paralegal work for corporate, you may be tasked to do putting together record sets. Lets’ say the company purchased a shopping mall, the record set for this acquired property might include contract in buying the mall, leases of current mall tenants, and tax forms associated with the purchase. On the other hand, paralegal work for litigation practice involves handling of documents that will be used for trials such as briefs, depositions, and motions.

However, although paralegal work is related to the work of the lawyers, one important point to remember is that paralegals are not permitted to provide legal advice, legal help, or even free legal advice. So if you need legal advice, there’s nothing to turn to but to lawyers only.

Paralegal or legal assistant is a person who does administrative functions for lawyers. Paralegal work is similar to the work of the lawyers however they are not allowed to give legal help, legal advice or free legal advice. They too are not allowed to represent someone in the court. In most cases, paralegal work involves preparation such as doing research needed for hearings, trials, or corporate meetings. Paralegal often works for law firms, government agencies, and other organizations.

If you are interested in doing paralegal work, you must have academic qualifications and have undergone necessary trainings in order to provide support to lawyers. In addition, since the scope of paralegal work involves the legal system, a person who wants to be a paralegal must have extensive knowledge of the legal system. To help you with this, it’s advisable that you visit online law dictionaries to be familiar with legal terminologies.

Moreover, there are several vocational schools that provide paralegal courses however, most law firms preferred to hire paralegals who have attended colleges that are regionally accredited or those training schools that have American Bar Association (ABA) approved programs. If you are searching for schools that offer trainings and qualifications for paralegal, just run a search on the Internet. However, it is highly advisable that you check the American Bar Association website first to make sure you know everything that you need to know about paralegal work training

Suffice it to say that since then, things have gotten a whole lot weirder.

Let’s recap. Bysiewicz wants to become Connecticut’s next attorney general. Thing is — and this is what we wrote about back in January — she might not qualify.

Connecticut law requires that “the Attorney General shall be an elector of this state and an attorney at law of at least ten years’ active practice at the bar of this state.” Whether Bysiewicz has “ten years’ active practice” under her belt depends on whether her service as Secretary of State qualifies. If it does, she’s got well over 10 years; if it doesn’t she’s only got six years’ experience.

To find out, Bysiewicz filed suit — against herself in her capacity of Secretary of State. Herself? That’s right. After all, part of her job as Secretary of State is to explain and defend the state’s election laws to a variety of candidates. If she doesn’t like the law, the office to sue is the one that enforces them — her own. Click here for the AP story.

According to the AP, a lawyer for Bysiewicz will argue soon that it’s unconstitutional to require attorney general candidates to have at least 10 years in active legal practice. Bysiewicz’s attorney, Wesley Horton, recently told the AP he would not comment publicly on the case before presenting it in court.

If the requirement is upheld as constitutional, Bysiewicz’s attorney will argue that her 11 years as secretary of the state and six years as a corporate lawyer more than meet the requirement.

“This is really, I think, uncharted territory for us here in Connecticut,” said Gary Rose, a political science professor at Sacred Heart University in Fairfield. to the AP. “Having to go into court to sue and into a deposition to pursue the (attorney general) position, I can’t think of another time in my lifetime, certainly, where I’ve seen anything remotely similar to what’s going on here,” Rose said.

Another odd little twist: The state GOP was allowed to join Bysiewicz’s lawsuit as a defendant. In a deposition taken by the State GOP, Bysiewicz acknowledged that she has never used the manual of Connecticut court procedures and rules governing attorneys, had never sat at a counsel table and had never been to a deposition or been a witness in a case.

When last we checked in on the situation (here), it appeared that Attorney General Eric Holder was leaning away from his original statement that the alleged mastermind of the 9/11 attacks would be tried in Manhattan federal court.

Okay, we figured, suspecting we’d also hear soon on the nitty gritty of this. But we didn’t. We waited, and nothing came from the Justice Department. Then we waited some more.

And now comes this: that Holder hasn’t entirely ruled out trying KSM or other accused terrorists in civilian federal court. Holder and Sen. Jeff Sessions (R, Ala.), the ranking Republican on the Senate Judiciary had this exchange during a hearing earlier Wednesday.

Sessions: You had a commission, you co-chaired the commission, to decide what to do, and you concluded that even those who’d already been arrested and already been detained at Guantánamo, there would be a presumption that they would be tried in civilian court, and not by military commission. Has that been changed?

Holder: That has not been changed.

Click here and here for stories from the National Law Journal and Main Justice, respectively.

According to Main Justice, Holder told members of the Senate Judiciary Committee that the administration had not yet reached a final decision on where KSM would be tried. Holder said he expects a decision on the trial location in “a number of weeks,” and emphasized that the DOJ would use “every tool available to fight terrorism,” wrote Main Justice’s Andrew Ramonas.

“As I’ve said from the outset, this is a close call,” Holder said. “It should be clear to everyone by now that there are many legal, national security and practical factors to be considered here. As a consequence, there are many perspectives on what the most appropriate and effective forum is.”

Sessions reiterated his point that KSM should not be tried in a civilian court and said he has grown concerned by Holder’s handling of terrorism suspects.

“As you know, I supported your nomination but your actions have shaken my confidence in your leadership at the Justice Department,” Sessions said.

Photo: AP

Incoming!

According to this story in Reuters by Matthew Goldstein, the SEC’s Inspector General, David Kotz (Maryland, Cornell Law), is expected to soon release a report criticizing how the SEC handled its Allen Stanford investigation. According to Goldstein’s story, Kotz’s report is expected “to be highly critical of the agency.”

The report is likely to strike a different chord from the one struck by Katz in a preliminary report issued last July, in which he concluded that the SEC did nothing wrong when it “stood down” on investigating Stanford, following the request of federal prosecutors.

But the new report, writes Goldstein, looks further back at the agency’s dealings with Stanford and, “suggests the SEC dragged its feet in getting its own probe under way.”

A spokesman for the SEC had no comment. Kotz’s report is being reviewed by the agency’s Freedom of Information Act office.

In February 2009, the SEC filed civil charges accusing Stanford and three of his companies of fraudulently selling billions of dollars of Certificates of Deposit. But it has said it faced jurisdictional hurdles in pursuing an investigation against an offshore bank like Stanford’s, which was based in Antigua.

In the meantime, Stanford (looking here, as one LB reader recently put it, a lot like the Most Interesting Man in the World) sits in a Texas detention center, held on numerous criminal charges arising arising out of his alleged $7 billion Ponzi scheme. His trial is scheduled for next January.

We should say up front that we don’t exactly know what qualifies as “old” these days, but people definitely seem to be doing more into their 60s, 70s and beyond than they ever did before. They run marathons and triathlons, they go back to law school, they retire not to high-rises in south Florida, but to midwestern college towns.

So, we ask, why should judges be made to retire at their 70th birthday?

Such is the thinking of a handful of states mulling changes to their rules requiring judges to step down at age 70. Click here for the story, from the National Law Journal.

Writes the NLJ’s Marcia Coyle:

In 2009, the Center reported, Kansas increased the age at which their justices must retire from 70 to 75, and South Dakota’s House of Representatives also approved an increase from 70 to 75.

The nine states that have recently considered or are considering legislation to increase or eliminate mandatory retirement ages for state judges are: Alabama (from 70 to 72); Arizona (70 to 75); Massachusetts (70 to 76); New Hampshire (70 to none); New Jersey (70 to 75); New York (70 to none); Virginia (70 to 73); Washington (75 to none), and Wyoming (70 to none).

So what’s behind the move? According to William Raftery, a court research analyst at the National Center for State Courts, the move comes as “the Baby Boom generation ages, life expectancies increase, and more veteran and able judges are forced into retirement.”

LBers, any thoughts? A few weeks ago, in this post, we suggested that the ripe old age of 90 might be a suitable retirement age for federal judges. (According to Coyle’s story, at least one state — Vermont — agrees with us). What do you think the age should be? 70? 75? 90? None at all?

Let’s explain. Cohen is 58 and is currently a first-year student at New York Law School. He’s already had a successful career in marketing and has taught marketing and management at a handful of schools. As he describes it in this piece, law school was a bit of a lark; he’d always been interested in law, but the recent departure of his youngest son to college made him an empty-nester. Suddenly he had the time to take on something like law school.

And the movie? That’s just our pipe-dream. We love movies about law school and think a tale of an older fellow trying his hand at a young-person’s game just might work. Especially given the following tidbits.

Cohen on law school and work:

I’m working harder in law school than I ever worked as an undergraduate or graduate student. Moreover, the workload is heavier, and the expectations tougher, than at any of the programs I taught in. As a night student, I go to class four evenings a week – two classes each night, totaling three hours. In addition to an hour of review before each class, my preparation on weekends is never less than 12 hours, and often more.

Cohen on law school and stress:

From the very first week of law school, assorted deans stressed that our job prospects upon
graduation would be directly related to our first-year grades. This is particularly salient inasmuch as we attend a “second tier” law school. Our grades are almost entirely dependent on the four-hour, closed-book final exam. (A tiny number of classes include a midterm exam that counts for about 25 percent of one’s grade.) And class participation can affect a student’s grade only marginally.

So, coupled to a seriously demanding workload, a largely new “language,” and the need to learn how to “think like a lawyer,” is the regular reminder that grades really count. Not surprisingly, the stress level among first-year law students is scarily high.

Cohen on computers in the classroom:

I am utterly shocked by the number of students who spend the entire class on their Blackberry or Facebook account. I find it both stupid and rude. Some surfers actually have the chutzpah to say to the professor they need their computers during class because their handwriting/note-taking is so poor. The professors aren’t oblivious, but only once did a prof tell a student to put away her Blackberry. I wanted to climb over the desk and dope-slap my classmate.

Cohen on the merits of the Socratic method:

. . . I did have one mini-course where the old-fashioned Kingsfield approach was used. I never worked harder preparing for that class, and my learning curve soared. As one tenured colleague reminded me, there is no need to embarrass students by not letting them off the hook when they choose to pass. (Though he notes in his grade book who is not prepared.) But the fear of embarrassing oneself by not being prepared for every case really did motivate me to work harder. As a teacher, I’m inclined to find my inner Kingsfield.

Cohen on his colleagues and social life:

I am not a teetotaler. But I am amazed by how much people in their 20s drink. And how often they drink to excess. Getting sick from alcohol is neither a badge of honor – as it is among underage drinkers – or a stigma. But for me it is disturbing. I just don’t get it. It is one area of my law school experience where I can’t find common ground with my classmates. Maybe I’ll just have to reinstitute sherry hour as a means to encourage moderation.

This would make a great movie, don’t you think? Some possible titles: 58L? The Old Man and the C+ (though Cohen reports his first-semester grades were good)?

Garzon was recently charged in Spain for allegedly ignoring a 1977 law that granted amnesty over the disappearance of over 100,000 people during the Spanish Civil War and the regime, headed by Francisco Franco, that followed. Garzon, an “investigative magistrate,” had opened an investigation into crimes that took place during that era in Spanish history. If convicted, he likely won’t go to jail, but will be stripped of his powers for a while.

Writing in Wednesday’s WSJ, University of Chicago law professor Eric Posner makes clear he’s not shedding any tears over the Garzon prosecution, calling his arrest “the end of a failed experiment in international justice.”

The “experiment,” in Posner’s mind, concerned the notion of “universal jurisdiction,” which Posner says means “that a domestic court can try anyone, including foreigners, who commit serious international crimes such as torture and genocide anywhere in the world.”

Garzon had been a big believer in this notion, and had pushed to extradite former Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet to Spain to have him stand trial for alleged war crimes (it didn’t happen). Investigations have been launched against Chinese, American and Israeli leaders. Posner writes that more than 125 countries have “universal jurisdiction.”

Posner is hopeful that the prosecution of Garzon will have a chilling effect on the other nations that subscribe to the “universal jurisdiction” notion. He writes:

Universal jurisdiction arose centuries ago to give states a means for fighting pirates. In recent years, idealistic lawyers have tried to convert it into an all-purpose instrument for promoting international justice. But supporters of this law turned a blind eye to the diverse and often incompatible notions of justice that exist across countries. Everyone can agree to condemn arbitrary detention, for example, but in practice people disagree about what the term means. Whether an amnesty should be issued so that a transition can be made to democracy (as in Chile or as in Spain), or exceptions to some rules should be made for the sake of national security are not questions for a foreign judge.

An NYT opinion piece from last week sees things differently. The Times writes that:

If convicted, [Garzon] could be barred from the bench for up to 20 years, effectively ending a career dedicated to holding terrorists and dictators accountable for their crimes. That would please his political enemies, but it would be a travesty of justice.

The Times piece focuses on this point: that without folks like Garzon, crimes against humanity will likely go unpunished and unresolved.

High-profile cases, like his bid to try the former Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet, appeal to him, and sometimes he overreaches. But his consistent goal has been to deny impunity to the powerful and expand the scope of international human rights law.

Mr. Garzón should be allowed to resume that work at the earliest possible date. Spain needs an honest accounting of its troubled past, not prosecution of those who have the courage to demand it.

First, some news: The National Law Journal reports that interest groups’ lobbying efforts are just starting to heat up.

For instance, the liberal group Alliance for Justice, which has called for a “progressive” replacement for Stevens, has launched a Facebook page called “Replace Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens with a Worthy Successor!” Meanwhile, Curt Levey, of the conservative Committee for Justice, says that while his group is gearing up, the big lobbying likely won’t start until after Obama has made his choice.

The choice, it seems, is unlikely to come until after Obama has sat down with four key senators to discuss the matter. The meeting, slated for next Wednesday, April 21, will include Senate Judiciary Committee chairman Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), and Sen. Jeff Sessions R-Ala., the Judiciary Committee’s top Republican.

On the commentary front, Chicago law professor Geoffrey Stone, an avowed liberal, on Wednesday teed up this piece on judicial activism in the NYT.

Stone attacks the notion that conservative judges and justices merely apply the law — “call balls and strikes,” as Chief Justice John Roberts has famously said — while more liberal justices merely use the law as place from which to launch their activist, policy-laden agendas.

Not so, says Stone. “Rulings by conservative justices in the past decade make it perfectly clear that they do not “apply the law” in a neutral and detached manner,” he writes, before mentioning a handful of decisions, including Citizens United, widely viewed as granting free-speech rights to corporations. Stone continues:

Whatever one thinks of these decisions, it should be apparent that conservative judges do not disinterestedly call balls and strikes. Rather, fueled by their own political and ideological convictions, they make value judgments, often in an often aggressively activist manner that goes well beyond anything the framers themselves envisioned. There is nothing simple, neutral, objective or restrained about such decisions. For too long, conservatives have set the terms of the debate about judges, and they have done so in a highly misleading way. Americans should see conservative constitutional jurisprudence for what it really is. And liberals must stand up for their vision of the judiciary.

So how should judges and justices interpret the law? Stone ain’t no Scalia, that’s for sure. He writes:

Faithfully applying our Constitution’s 18th- and 19th-century text to 21st-century problems requires not only careful attention to the text, fidelity to the framers’ goals and respect for precedent, but also an awareness of the practical realities of the present. Only with such awareness can judges, in a constantly changing society, hope to keep faith with our highest law.

Jonah Goldberg, writing on Wednesday in the LAT, would almost assuredly disagree with Stone.

In his piece, titled “Empathy and the Court,” Goldberg bashes the notion that judges should use “empathy” when making their judgments and rulings:

[T]he empathy-for-the-little-guy standard is simply a Trojan horse for an approach just as abstract as any endorsed by the right. In fact, I would say it’s more abstract because at least there’s a text conservatives invoke — the Constitution — rather than the indefinable feeling of “empathy.”

Unless the plight of every gay, black, poor, old or disabled American is the same, then coming into court favoring a specific category of human being is nothing more than state-sanctioned prejudice.

The benefit of the ideal of impartial justice is that it provides a standard by which judges aren’t asked to rule by prejudice. We’ll never fully get there, but I don’t think we should stop trying.

LBers, any thoughts?