Assignment #6
Yes and No. This is because the decision varies with the states and the underlying regulations. Some of the states, such as North Carolina, prohibit the payment of a fee to paralegals as a demonstration of good work was done since it violates the ethical prohibitions of sharing a fee with a non-lawyer (Schönteich, 2016). According to the North Carolina professional conduct rule 5.4 (a), a lawyer should not share legal fees with a non-lawyer. The reason for this approach as detailed in the comments is to prevent third parties from influencing the direction of the judgment (Braithwaite, 2015). Similarly, subsection CPR 289 highlights that it is unacceptable for the attorney to share a legal fee with the paralegal.
However, Rule 5.4 (a) illustrates that a lawyer or a law firm may engage in a compensation plan with a paralegal that is based on a profit-sharing arrangement. As highlighted above, this statement supports law firm can pay non-lawyers based on the overall generated profits rather than the revenue generated from a given matter. On the other hand, the ABA model acknowledges that lawyers can compensate paralegals based on the quality and the quantity of work accomplished (Schönteich, 2016). With these guidelines, the law firms have been left with the ability to police themselves. Ideally, it means that the law firm can pay a paralegal, marketing director, or any other non-lawyer employee a performance bonus based on the profit or increased revenues (Braithwaite, 2015). On the contrary, in other areas, lawyers must abide by the ethical guidelines, which should not be violated.
References
Schönteich, M. (2016). A powerful tool of justice: Paralegals and the provision of affordable and accessible legal services. South African Crime Quarterly, (42). doi: 10.17159/2413-3108/2012/v0i42a831
Braithwaite, J. (2015). Paralegals changing lenses. Restorative Justice, 3(3), 311-324. doi: 10.1080/20504721.2015.1109332