'Fess up, paralegals: What's the real difference between you and associates?
Need a reality-check on your office's hierarchy and hiring mojo? You should read Rees Morrison's post, "Are There Limits To What Good Paralegals Can Do? Morrison writes:
"Given equal intelligence and work ethic between someone admitted to the bar after law school and a paralegal, both working the same time in a law department, what is the practical difference between them? ... Maybe it's because business unit managers want to be counseled by 'a lawyer,' not simply someone smart who knows the law and can apply it ..."
Here's a shout out to paralegals in the readership, as well as attorneys who work with paralegals:
Are experienced paralegals smarter and/or better with clients than the associates at your firm?
How do paralegals feel about training new, green classes of associates year after year?
What should I ask that I haven't? I see that Enrico Schaefer made this comment on Morrison's blog: "... or maybe its because lawyers can charge twice as much for the same hour of time. Seriously, how many law firms think hard about saving their client money by making sure the easiest tasks are handled by the lowest billing rate? How many firms have business models devoted to saving clients money and adding value to the deliverables?"
I don't know -- do you? I welcome your comments and links below.
Posted by Laurel Newby on March 22, 2005 at 12:43 PM | Permalink
| Comments (0)
| TrackBack (0)
TrackBack URL for this entry:
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference 'Fess up, paralegals: What's the real difference between you and associates?: