paralegals

By: Jeanne M. Huey

The intake coordinator at the firm walks a prospect through which the retainer option makes sense for their situation. A legal assistant talks an upset client down from a fee dispute. A paralegal passes on a message from the lawyer in response to a client’s call about settlement strategy.

Each of these events occurs in busy litigation practices and poses a disciplinary problem. When a paralegal crosses into work reserved to lawyers, the responsible lawyer has violated Model Rule 5.3 and may also have assisted in the unauthorized practice of law under Model Rule 5.5.

What Cannot Be Delegated?

Guideline 3 of the ABA Model Guidelines for the Utilization of Paralegal Services identifies three responsibilities a lawyer may not delegate to a paralegal: establishing an attorney-client relationship, establishing the amount of a fee to be charged for a legal service, and responsibility for a legal opinion rendered to a client. Put another way: Deciding to take on a client, deciding what to charge, and advising a client on what the law requires are core lawyer functions. They are not administrative tasks, even if they are embedded in administrative conversations.

Client Intake

ABA Formal Opinion 506 (2023) addresses paralegal involvement in client intake. Trained staff may check for conflicts, collect information, and explain, in general, how fees and costs are structured. The critical limitation is that the prospective client must always have the opportunity to discuss the fee agreement and scope of representation with a lawyer before signing. That opportunity cannot be designed out of a high-volume practice. The comment to Guideline 3 makes the fee point explicit, citing Model Rule 1.5: The lawyer must set the fee and discuss the basis for it directly with the client—a brief, documented lawyer conversation when the fee agreement is entered into addresses most of the risk.

The Relay Problem

Many lawyers use paralegals or other staff members to pass messages to clients. In a busy practice, that can feel necessary: “Lawyer Joe told me to tell you to reject the offer.” The Model Guidelines contemplate this. The comment to Guideline 3 says paralegals may be authorized to communicate a lawyer’s legal advice to a client so long as they do not interpret or expand on that advice. Pure relay is not categorically prohibited. But there is risk involved.

If the question is important enough for the client to call about, it usually warrants a direct conversation with the lawyer. More practically, clients ask follow-up questions. They want to know why. They want to know what happens if they reject the offer. They want to know what the judge might do or the mediator might think. The moment the paralegal explains, elaborates, or answers a new question, the conversation shifts from relaying advice to giving it. That is where unauthorized-practice concerns arise, and where clients lose track of who is responsible for the advice.

There is also a billing issue. When the lawyer has already analyzed the issue, but the paralegal spends time delivering the answer, it is difficult to characterize the paralegal’s client communication as substantive legal work that can be billed. Often, the cleaner solution is for the lawyer to make the call.

Substantive Legal Work: What Paralegals Can Bill For

Provided that the lawyer maintains responsibility for the work product, a lawyer may delegate any task normally performed by the lawyer except those prohibited by statute, court rule, or the rules of professional conduct.

Experienced paralegals draft discovery, summarize depositions, prepare trial exhibits, cite-check briefs, interview witnesses, manage deadlines, and coordinate experts. That is substantive work.

Under Guideline 8 and the Missouri v. Jenkins line of cases, 491 U.S. 274 (1989), paralegal time is separately compensable only for substantive legal work. It reduces cost to the client and allows the lawyer to focus on strategy and advocacy. Engagement letters should make clear that paralegals work under a lawyer’s supervision, bill at reduced rates, and are not authorized to provide legal advice or discuss fees.

Two recurring problems with paralegal billing should be easy to fix. ABA Formal Opinion 93-379 (1993) addresses what constitutes a reasonable fee under Rule 1.5 and is explicit that over-staffing a matter to generate hours does not earn a fee. First, billing for a paralegal who attends a meeting or deposition the lawyer is already billing for, when the paralegal’s presence was not independently necessary, is generally not reasonable. Second, billing separately for internal conferences where tasks are assigned is usually not substantive legal work. Supervising staff is part of practicing law. Courts reject this double billing in fee petitions. Sophisticated clients do the same in hourly matters.

Put Policies in Place

Have written scope-of-authority policies. Provide everyone in the firm with training on when legal information becomes legal advice. Give the staff clear escalation language to use consistently. For example, “That’s a question for Lawyer Joe. I’ll make sure they get back to you today.” A well-trained and properly supervised paralegal handling substantive legal work under your direction makes your practice more efficient, reduces client costs, and lets you focus on the work only lawyers can do.

Need More Information?

The Model Guidelines are a floor, not a ceiling. Many states impose more specific requirements. Know the rules in the jurisdictions where you practice. Guidelines and ethics rules for paralegals can be found on the websites of national paralegal associations, such as the National Association of Paralegals (NALA), the National Federation of Paralegal Associations, the National Association for Legal Support Professionals (NALS), and the International Paralegal Management Association.

© 2026 by the American Bar Association. Reproduced with permission. All rights reserved. This information or any portion thereof may not be copied or disseminated in any form or by any means or stored in an electronic database or retrieval system without the express written consent of the American Bar Association.