Paralegal option for law grads has its downsides

The recent glut of lawyers has sparked debates within the legal fraternity.

In 2014, the Law Minister flagged that a spike in Singaporeans studying law overseas could lead to an oversupply and warned aspirants to the profession to temper career and salary expectations.

In view of the lack of training contracts and vacancies for fresh law graduates, should they be retained as paralegals instead? (“Lukewarm response to paralegal option as way to soak up oversupply”; Aug 28, online)

First, law graduates expect, at the minimum, to be able to advise clients on legal matters or appear in court after being called to the Bar; to assume responsibility rather than assist. Paralegals are not allowed to do so.

Second, the retention of graduates as paralegals may ease the lawyer glut but may cause an oversupply of paralegals. This is akin to attracting tigers to repel wolves, a solution with negative consequences.

Third, retaining graduates as paralegals may result in a shortage of experienced paralegals when they get called to the Bar.

An experienced paralegal is hard to find and takes years to nurture. Time and effort would be needed to retrain new paralegals.

Moreover, advocates focus on litigation and have a right of audience before the courts, while solicitors focus mainly on non-litigation matters. A clear distinction between responsibilities would cater for the industry’s needs better.

Therefore, we propose to separate the fused legal profession and introduce a Qualifying Rate on top of the Bar exam. Candidates who pass the exam would be admitted as solicitors, while advocates would be those who meet the Qualifying Rate.

Solicitors who wish to qualify as advocates, however, may have to gain work experience for a few years and take another exam of a different difficulty from the Bar exam.

Also, as the role of solicitors is premised on non-litigation work, and to cater for graduates who still wish to be in litigation, an exception can be made for solicitors to practise community law.

This reallocation of supply would meet the expectations of the industry and law graduates. The matching of expectations is not too far off. Currently, it is not an oversupply per se but a mismatch of expectations in practice areas.

Also, retaining graduates as paralegals would not fulfil their expectations, whether monetary or personal satisfaction, or even the market’s expectations.

Like most graduates, law graduates spend a substantial amount on their education and understandably want to generate a return on their investment as quickly as possible. But expectations for starting salaries must be reasonable and in line with the market.