Freelance Paralegal

In Ontario, Canada, paralegals are licensed and regulated the same way that lawyers are in the United States. A paralegal license allows the paralegal to provide legal advice and services to members of the public in certain types of matters and appear before certain lower level courts and administrative tribunals. Ontario paralegals can operate independently, without the supervision of a lawyer, and some even carry professional malpractice insurance.

In the interview below, Elisheva Eisenberg, a licensed paralegal in Toronto, Ontario, shares his experiences as paralegal business owner. He operates Shevas Legal Services and has been a paralegal for one year. Eisenberg is licensed by the Law Society of Upper Canada and is a member of the Paralegal Society of Ontario, a member of ARCH Disability Law Centre and a member of Stanford Who's Who.

For more paralegal "day-in-the-life" interviews, see these paralegal stories or, for lawyer practice insights, review these lawyer stories.

What is your educational background?

I earned a diploma in paralegal communications from Everest College-Toronto Central Campus in June, 2010.

What does your paralegal business specialize in? How many paralegals work in your firm?

I am the owner and sole paralegal in my firm. I represent clients in ADR, small claims, landlord tenant, disability, human rights, labour relations and parking ticket disputes. I am a living ambassador for people with discriminated rights and specifically for people with disabilities.

What are your daily responsibilities as an independent, freelance paralegal?

My primary responsibilities are managing and growing my company. On a daily basis, I perform marketing, networking and business management in addition to paralegal work such as completing forms and paperwork, going to court, meeting clients and customer service.

What skills and abilities are necessary to succeed as freelance paralegal or paralegal business owner?

To operate as a freelance paralegal, you must be punctual, organized, motivated and possess great people skills. You must also have excellent command of the English language as well as excellent grammar and spelling skills. In addition, you must be able to operate legal and office technology such as computers programs, printers and fax, copy and scanning machines.

What do you like best about your job as a freelance paralegal?

I feel good when I help others. I particularly enjoy helping people in situations similar to my own over my lifetime.

What challenges do you face on a daily basis in operating your paralegal business?

My primary challenge as a freelance paralegal is not having enough time to get work done and family members not understanding that I'm at work when I'm at home working.

What hurdles have you overcome in establishing your independent paralegal business?

Understanding that I have the power to do things!

Are employment opportunities for independent or freelance paralegals growing?

Getting a job here in Ontario as a paralegal can be very difficult. The profession [independent paralegals] is growing by leaps and bounds but because it is still new not many people realize what paralegals can do. Many paralegals have come together to try to educate the public about the roles and abilities of independent paralegals.

Can you provide any tips for others who would like to launch their own paralegal business?

Start your practice and get out there!

Is there any particular training, work experience or certification that would give aspiring freelance paralegals an edge?

The more education you have, the more clients are attracted to you.

What are some of your favorite resources as an independent paralegal practitioner?

Ontario Civil Practice, Barron's Canadian Law Dictionary and legal seminars. Networking as much as possible and creating an informative website that talks to your client base is important to growing your paralegal business.

Do you have any tips you can share regarding establishing and building a paralegal business or operating as a freelance paralegal?

Don't go after the money, make your clients feel important for who they are. I don't talk from my mouth, I talk from my heart and what comes from the heart goes to the heart.

Can you share a fun fact about yourself?

My life's mission is to take every weakness and convert it to a strength. An example would be my epilepsy. I don't say I'm "disabled" but instead I tell people what the condition is and how they can help rather than hiding it.

For more on freelancing, see this guide to freelance work in the legal industry, and this list of freelance opportunities in the legal field.

Pursuing a Career in Science and Law

Increased interest in biotechnology, the pervasiveness of biotechnology products in daily life, and escalating numbers of patent filings and intellectual property (IP) infringement cases, has caused a high demand for lawyers with scientific/ technology backgrounds. For anyone considering alternative careers in biotechnology, the marriage of these two disciplines in a course of study can almost guarantee employment after graduation. In a recent interview with the University of Guelph Alumni magazine "Portico", patent lawyer Maria Granovsky described her first employer in the legal field, law firm Sterne Kessler, Goldstein & Fox (Washington, DC), as "keen to have associates who could argue the fine points of science".

So keen, in fact, that they paid her tuition to attend law school.

Marriage of Law and Science

Job opportunities, for individuals with both legal and scientific backgrounds, include work as a technical specialist (science degree) or associate (both degrees), dealing in IP cases such as patent, copyright and trademark disputes. The cases might be opened on behalf of clients already holding rights to a product or copyright, that have reason to claim those rights have been infringed by another party. Other times, clients might require protection from a lawsuit filed by another party whose patent claim, they feel, is invalid.

Many complications in establishing IP ownership can arise nowadays because of the sheer volume of patent claims being made and difficulty on the part of both researchers and regulating bodies, in keeping track of the specifics of (and ensuring the uniqueness of) each invention.

An invention that has already been previously described in the literature, or something that has been on the market for years, cannot be patented, yet the filing party, or patent office, might not be aware of the pre-existing product. That's when the lawyers are called in; to examine the facts, decipher the legal jargon, establish precedence, and defend their cases in court. According to Granovsky, law firms are having a hard time finding individuals with a solid understanding of the technology behind many of these high-tech cases.

Committee on Science, Technology, and Law

The National Academy of Sciences has recognized the convergence of these two very different disciplines by forming a Committee on Science, Technology and Law, to explore, discuss, and establish policies on five major areas: Science in Litigation, Federal Information Policy/ Access to Research Data, Science and National Security, Intellectual Property Rights and Protection of Human Participants in Environmental Research.

According to the Academy, much of the problem with legal cases surrounding technology issues is the key difference between how these two traditional disciplines have evolved. The practice of Law is based on facts and finite findings in an effort to resolve issues that might not have definitive answers according to science. Science, traditionally, is a discipline of sharing information, and an "open-ended search for expanded understanding, whose 'truths' are always subject to revision".

Expanding commercialism and the need to recover biotechnology investments and research funding through profits, has lead to the invasion of the scientific domain by legal issues surrounding IP, access to research data and conflicts of interest. Although science may have done without lawyers in the past, there are now many important bioethics issues that must be dealt with in areas of environmental science, biotechnology, genetics and medical research.

Success in either discipline depends on an ability to go "fact-finding"; gathering information and processing it in an orderly fashion. Both require a high amount of logic and attention to detail. Therefore, strengths in one area are easily applied to the other. A combined Science/Law degree provides essential tools for many other career options such as consulting, corporate management and other areas of technology. It’s not all glamor and courtroom heroics, though. Like any job, much of the routine involves attending meetings, seeing clients, research, and reading, writing letters and reviewing contracts and other documents, but the job description is ideal for those interested in studying science but looking for a career outside the laboratory.

Should lawyers be allowed to advertise?

Should lawyers be allowed to advertise?

BY RANSOM RIGGS SEPTEMBER 19, 2007

For most of the 20th century, bar associations forbade nearly all forms of attorney advertising; you could be disbarred for hawking your services on anything other than a business card. Bar associations thought big bold ads were unprofessional, would stir up unnecessary lawsuits, would drive up prices and could even result in a decrease in the quality of legal services, thanks to increased competition. In the 1970s, the Supreme Court ruled that such "commercial speech" by lawyers was subject to First Amendment protection, and that was the end of the ban.

These days, lawyers are famous for being among the loudest of local advertisers, and our airwaves and billboards are flooded with ads that make my skin crawl a bit -- in particular, the price wars on who can offer the cheapest divorce (the example above caused an uproar and was ripped down by the city of Chicago after just a week) inspire in me a momentary pessimism about human nature.

Best of all, though, are the TV ads. Check out these two excellently slimy commercials, both by guys who call themselves "The Hammer."

So, I ask you -- was the seventy-year ban on lawyer ads the right thing to do?

Jury Selection: Gain and Edge in Questioning and Selecting your Jury 3rd Edition

This much anticipated and expanded Third Edition by one of the nation's most experienced trial consultants goes beyond other books on jury selection and focuses on the skills needed to conduct effective voir dire and jury selection, ultimately improving your chances of a favorable verdict at trial. This valuable guide will help you understand effective voir dire and jury selection strategies and adapt them to the unique circumstances you face in your trial jurisdiction.

Editorial Reviews

Review

". . . a must have for any attorney facing jury trials. Loaded with insights, real world examples, practical advice,  . . . it will be a resource that you will go to whenever you prepare for jury selection. . . . Simply put, you will be better at your craft by reading this book."

-- Stephen N. Zack, President, American Bar Association

"In Mastering Voir Dire leading jury expert Jeff Frederick has produced a first rate volume that should be on the desk of every trial lawyer . . ."

-- Neil Vidmar, Ph.D., Russell M. Robinson II Professor of Law, Duke Law School, Professor of Psychology, and co-author of American Juries: The Verdict (2007).

". . . one of the most useful guides to conducting voir dire and jury selection currently available. . .  A must read and continuing resource for all serious trial lawyers."

-- Morris Dees, Chief Trial Counsel, Southern Poverty Law Center

". . . a valuable resource for anyone who faces the elusive task of picking a jury. . . . I'll keep this book in arms reach from now on."

-- Elizabeth Foley, Founding Partner Zagnoli McEvoy Foley, former President, The American Society of Trial Consultants

"Once again, Dr. Jeffrey Frederick has offered lawyers a masterful introduction to voir dire and jury selection.  He covers virtually everything that a lawyer would want or need to know about selecting a jury. . . . "

-- Stephen A. Saltzburg, Wallace and Beverley Woodbury University Professor, George Washington University Law School

About the Author

Dr. Jeffrey Frederick is the Director of the Jury Research Services Division of the National Legal Research Group, Inc., in Charlottesville, Virginia. This division provides research and assistance to attorneys in addressing the problems faced in selecting juries and trying cases before juries. He has assisted attorneys in hundreds of criminal and civil cases since 1975. He is a member of the American Psychological Association, American Psychology/Law Society, and American Society of Trial Consultants.

He is a nationally recognized speaker and author in the area of jury trials. He has written extensively on the topic of jury trials and trial advocacy, including two books, Mastering Voir Dire and Jury Selection: Gain an Edge in Questioning and Selecting Your Jury, Third Edition, and The Psychology of the American Jury.

He has a wife, Linda, a son, Gabe, and a pretty cool granddaughter, Emma.

They Don't Think Like Lawyers

During the course of a trial, a lawyer works hard to present evidence and jury instructions to ensure that the jury will view the case from the same perspective that the lawyer does. A lawyer knows that under the law, the decision of the jury must be based on the admissible evidence and guided by the jury instructions.

Jurors ignore this.

A number of studies confirm that jurors decide cases on a number of factors, the least of which are jury instructions and admissible evidence. Jurors don’t think like lawyers, and successful jury trial lawyers recognize this fact.

1. Inductive versus deductive reasoning. 

Lawyers are trained in inductive reasoning. They use specific facts to prove a conclusion. Each element of the claim for relief they are trying to prove is substantiated by specific facts arising from testimony and documents.

Most of us, however, during our nonlawyer, everyday lives use deductive reasoning—we use general knowledge to make assumptions about a specific case. Most of us, based on our experience, develop general assumptions about the way the world works. Those assumptions include stereotypes, biases, and prejudices. When we are exposed to a new situation, we simply apply the assumptions developed from our general knowledge and experience to the situation at hand to arrive at a conclusion.

2. During deliberations, jurors discuss their own general experiences. 

Studies disclose that during deliberations, jurors share with fellow jurors their own personal experiences, which they believe will be helpful in coming to the right conclusion in the case on which they must make a decision.

Recent studies disclose that jury deliberation time is devoted to a discussion of the following issues in the following percentages of total deliberation time:

50 percent discussing general experiences;

35 percent discussing procedural issues;

8 percent discussing jury instructions; and

7 percent discussing perceived admissible evidence.

These statistics are shocking, in that they disclose that jurors spend only about 15 percent of deliberation time discussing the two factors (jury instructions and admissible evidence) on which they are mandatorily bound to make their decision.

3. What these statistics ought to tell us.

Because jurors are inclined to spend most of their time and energy sharing general experiences and ignoring jury instructions and admissible evidence, certain practices should be considered:

a. Remind the jurors of their obligations. We need to emphasize the importance of jury instructions and admissible evidence and drive home the jurors’ responsibility to decide each case solely on these factors. Experienced practitioners often warn jurors against their natural inclination to allow their own general experiences, biases, prejudices, and presumptions relating to stereotypes to influence their decision. This warning not only encourages each juror to resist deductive reasoning but also encourages the group as a whole to be critical of any individual juror who argues on an inappropriate basis. 

b. Recognize that you can’t change the stripes on a tiger. Experience teaches most of us, however, that despite our encouragement, lecturing, and cajoling to the contrary, most jurors either openly and expressly or secretly and impliedly allow their general experience to influence their decision. Recognizing this phenomenon suggests certain techniques:

i. Eliminate jurors who are predisposed against our clients. If we recognize that jurors are naturally heavily influenced by their own general experiences, then during jury selection (voir dire) we try to eliminate jurors whose general experience and background will predispose them to look at our client or our version of the facts adversely. Appeals to duty, the requirements of the law, and civil responsibility are largely ineffective. Use your peremptory challenges to eliminate potentially troublesome jurors.

ii. Appeal to the general experience of jurors. Recognizing how strongly and naturally the jurors will be inclined to judge your case on their own general experiences, develop themes and arguments that appeal to the jurors’ general experiences so that supporting you and your client will be consistent with their natural deductive reasoning. 

iii. Expose yourself to the experiences of the masses. Each of us needs to work hard to ensure that if we wish to persuade jurors, we either share or understand the general experiences that they will carry to the courtroom. Some lawyers make it a habit of viewing the most popular movies and television programs and reading the most popular novels and magazines to enable them to think like a juror and recognize where common experience can be used in the art of persuasion. Other lawyers listen to talk shows to develop a sense of what people on the street are thinking and why. Other lawyers never miss an opportunity to engage in small talk with the kind of folks who serve on juries (cab drivers, gas station attendants, and grocery clerks) to develop an awareness of how they think and how they are persuaded.

4. Conclusion. 

There are no easy answers here. But awareness is what is key. If we realize how jurors are inclined to deliberate and to make their decisions and use that information to our advantage, we can improve the effectiveness of our skills of persuasion.