What are the key arguments in opposition to and in favor of paralegal licensure? What is your opinion on the matter?

Question

What will be an ideal response?

Answer 1

The arguments in opposition to paralegal licensure center around the proposition that it is
unnecessary because lawyers are already responsible for the conduct and work product of
their nonlawyer assistants. In essence, this is the “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it” argument.
Another argument is that paralegal/legal assistant licensure would unnecessarily increase the
price of legal services because the higher wages of licensed paralegals/legal assistants would
be passed along to clients. A third argument is that licensure would prevent certain,
prospective paralegals/legal assistants from being able to enter the job market because not
everyone would successfully complete the licensure process. The arguments in support of
licensure focus on the need for the maturation of the profession to include licensing. As the
profession has moved from its infancy, it needs to improve the quality of services by
instituting some uniform licensing mechanisms (this is the “It ain’t broke, but it could be
better” argument). Another argument is that licensing would correctly prevent inadequate
applicants from being able to enter a professional field for which they are unsuitable. A third
argument is a response to the contra-argument that licensing would increase prices for legal
services. The response is that even if it were true (something that has not been demonstrated),
that reason is insufficient to prevent licensing from coming to fruition.