Why Do Lawyers get so angry?

When paralegals branch out on their own? After all, it is the paralegal who does all the work and they know the law as well if not better than the lawyers.

I am not a paralegal but I have many friends who are. Some worked for lawyers and a couple worked in the DA's office. They have all left and started their own Pro se Self Help Businessess.

Some have made the mistake of accusing paralegals of practicing law. Paralegals who branch out DO NOT advise on the law and have a "WE ARE NOT ATTORNEYS AND CANNOT GIVE ADVISE in their advertisement. They are allowed BY LAW and in EVERY state, as is EVERY american citizen, to research law for informative purposes ONLY and if acting on one's own behalf, use the information as a defense. Pro se IS NOT illegal in ANY state as it was deemed a Constitutional RIGHT in Farreta v California 1975 http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/ge...

I owned a paralegal company for six years and just sold it to another person. I also married a lawyer (talk about the anger). Anyway, from my relationship to my husband and my attorney clients, I can say that lawyers get so angry because a small mistake can mean the end of their career. It's unfair. In New Jersey, where I used to live, anyone can file a complaint and sue a lawyer even if it is something false that is claimed and a lawyer is unable to have recourse to their client.

I was a very good paralegal and had a business that assisted lawyers in real estate closings, estate financials, trust account bookkeeping, recruiting and other areas. I also had the general public ( I would hold child support workshops free to the public). I had title companies and mortgage companies as my clients.

I think what happens is that we get so very much discouraged by being yelled at. I even got yelled at by clients. I then had to acknowledge their anger and try to solve it very quickly. It's easier to take the anger when you are making the money.

Because some paralegals do know the law better than some attorneys and some do not.

State bars have a monopoly on the practice of law to, in theory, protect the public from individuals who are not qualified to give legal advice. It is very debatable rather or not the current requirements for joining the bar make sense. However, the resolution to such a dispute is to have those rules changed (which might make it easier for some paralegals to become lawyers, and eliminate some incompetent attorneys). Letting more unqualified individuals practice law does not solve the broader concern.

you've got an issue in your logic though--

nearly all attorneys spend their years during law school serving as paralegals. the term is "summer associate" but they do all the grunt work and spend 3 years after earning a bachelor's degree studying law.

add the continuing education requirements? suddenly the lawyer knows a lot more about law than the average paralegal.

the real reason they get angry is probably because it's difficult to find a qualified paralegal who won't need a ton of training for your office. they're not like screws--easily replaceable.

Actually in most states what you are describing is criminal and called the unauthorized practice of law. And nobody likes it when a good employee leaves. Usually the goods one leave and you can't rid of the bad ones.

Quote: "...Why Do Lawyers get so angry?"

Because they're not making enough money as is, plus more 'paralegals' know more about the 'law' then "LAWyers" themselves do! ;-)

Not a lot of what you're describing happens here. Most paralegals in Los Angeles are employed by attorneys. Indeed, paralegals cannot provide legal advice. And "pro se self help" is an extremely limited situation. Well qualified paralegals in L.A. often support lawyers in practice areas that simply are not suited to "pro se self help" (corporate securities litigation, for example; entertainment, etc.). Anyone can refer to himself or herself as a "paralegal". The title is largely if not entirely un-regulated. Quality law firms usually insist on a recognized paralegal certificate or even a degree, but this is not necessarily the case in "pro se self help". I have seen a number of in pro per litigants (pro se is the federal term and the term used in some states; in pro per is the California term) whose pleadings were done horribly and easily decimated by a competent opposing attorney. But beware especially of paralegals who "advise"; it is unlawful and you do not know the person's qualifications and you have no recourse in terms of a professional, state-issued license, etc.
As for paralegals "doing all the work" and "knowing the law as well if not better than the lawyers", that has not been my own professional experience or my own observation. Perhaps among lazy, marginal lawyers--I wouldn't know. But not my experience or observation. Actually, the most "dangerous" paralegals are perhaps the ones who have a semester or a year of law school. I remember one who, after taking torts and civil procedure in law school, announced, "Well, what more is there?" How about EVIDENCE, for one thing! What concerned me was that her thought process did not even include an analysis of how to actually prove a case, what evidence would be admissible, inadmissible, admissible for a limited purpose, etc. Or that Evidence was even a separate course in law school! Anyway, there are some great paralegals out there and perhaps a few of them are in the "self-help" arena. But, if they really are into the law, I think they would find the "pro se, self-help" situation too limiting, professionally. Just not enough "meat". By the way, I'm "hands-on" and prefer to do the work myself. And that's what my clients want, too.

The lawyer gets upset because a paralegal branching out on their own is against the law.

While the laws vary by state and country, almost universally it's a crime to practice law without a license.

And if the paralegal is still under the employ of the lawyer, the lawyer is also legally responsible -- and could get disbarred -- if the paralegal violates the law.