About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

4 U. Tol. L. Rev. 439 (1972-1973)
Paralegal Advocacy before Administrative Agencies: A Training Format

handle is hein.journals/utol4 and id is 453 raw text is: PARALEGAL ADVOCACY BEFORE ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCIES: A TRAINING FORMAT William P. Statsky* I. INTRODUCTION In 1969 the United States Supreme Court held in Johnson v. Avery' that if inmates had no access to counsel or law students, a prison could not prohibit laymen, i.e., the jailhouse lawyers, from providing legal services to specified segments of the inmate popula- tion.' While the Johnson holding is narrow in that it is limited to inmate access to courts,3 the opinion provides a fundamental rationale for the utilization of non-lawyers on a broad scale. If lawyers are unavailable, for whatever reason, our society will sanction alternative systems for the delivery of legal services. The paramount consideration will not be ethics nor the exclusivity of the right to practice law, but rather it will be the facilitation of acess routes to the grievance machi- nery set up for the resolution of claims. Justice Douglas, in his concur- ring opinion in Johnson, articulated this reality in terms of new roles for laymen: But it is becoming clear that more and more of the effort in ferreting out the bases of claims and the agencies responsible for them and in preparing the almost endless paperwork for their prosecution is work for laymen. There are not enough lawyers to manage or supervise all of these affairs . . . . Yet there is a closed-shop philosophy in the legal profession that cuts down drastically active roles for laymen.4 * B.A., Boston College, 1964; J.D., Boston College, 1967; LL. M., New York University, 1970; Professor of Law, Antioch School of Law; former Assistant Director, National Paralegal Institute; former Director, Program for Legal Service Assistants, Columbia Law School. I. 393 U.S. 483 (1969). 2. Id. 3. On the practice of law by inmates, see generally Younger v. Gilmore, 404 U.S. 15 (1971), affg mem., sub nom. Gilmore v. Lynch, 319 F. Supp. 105 (N.D. Calif. 1970): Arey v. Peyton, 378 F.2d 930 (4th Cir. 1967); Cross v. Powers, 328 F. Supp. 899 (W.D. Wisc. 1971); United States ex rel. Stevenson v. Mancusi, 325 F. Supp. 1028 (W.D.N.Y. 1971); In re Harrell, 2 Cal. 3d 675, 470 P.2d 640, 87 Cal. Rptr. 504 (1970); Hamilton, A Jailhouse Lawyer's View: Problems Posed By The Jury and Post- Conviction Litigation, 2 COLUM. SURVEY OF HUMAN RIGHTS L. 131 (1969-70); Jacob & Sharma, Justice After Trial: Prisoners' Need for Legal Services in the Criminal- Correctional Process, 18 U. KAN. L. REV. 494, 591, 594 (1970); Larsen, A Prisoner Looks at Writ-Writing, 56 CALIF. L. REV. 343 (1968); 1972 Wisc. L. REV. 300; and 3 U.W. Los ANGELES L. REV. 174 (1971). 4. 393 U.S. at 491. See also Hackin v. Arizona, 389 U.S. 143 (1967) (Douglas,

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Short-term subscription options include 24 hours, 48 hours, or 1 week to HeinOnline.

Purchase Access

Contact us for annual subscription options:

Contact Us

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most