RECENTLY, some damming comments were made on the functions and characters of persons commissioned to function as Justices of the Peace and Commissioner of Oaths to Affidavits (JP/COA).

These comments are not without justification, for among JPs/COAs there and those who are downright dishonest and even lack the basic knowledge of general legal principles. Most JPs/COAs operate with formats and precedents and without any supervision. So let’s ask the question: “Why do people go to the JP/COAs for legal services?
Many sectors of the community that seek justice complain about their inability to tap into the legal system. The reason most often given is that the cost of legal services is too high. But this is not the only reason the legal system is inaccessible to many people.
Access to justice and legal services may be restricted because of geographic factors; institutional limitations; racial, class, and gender biases as well as economic factors. The way legal services are delivered by the legal profession, the nature of court proceedings, including procedural requirements, police handling of matters and the language used are also barriers limiting people’s opportunity to obtain justice.
In considering options for improving access to the legal system, it is critical that due attention be given to all the barriers and not just economic ones. Even if a large proportion of the population were readily able to purchase legal services in the current system, there would still be many others who would believe that they were being denied.

It is in this broad framework that discussion of the role of Justices of the Peace and Commissioners of Oaths to Affidavits should be placed as paralegal. The merits of developing the role of paralegals must be discussed in relation to all the barriers preventing access to the legal system, in order to decide whether this will improve the community’s access to legal services and justice.
Obviously, there will be many other possible solutions to the problem of creating greater access to the legal system and the relative merit of these alternatives must also be considered and weighed against the increasing use of Justices of the Peace and Commissioners of Oaths to affidavits as paralegals. This then raises the question of who is a paralegal practitioner.

** Definition and Work of Paralegals
Within the Justice Administration Reform Programmes and the delivery of Justice to all communities, consideration is given to the training and development of a paralegal system. Paralegals are workers who, although not admitted to practise, often perform legal tasks which are also performed by lawyers. They may work beside lawyers; in the stead of lawyers or be supplementary to lawyers. The term paralegal is often used interchangeably with the terms legal assistant; law clerk; lay advocate; Justice of the Peace; Commissioners of Oaths to Affidavits; non-lawyer and community legal worker.

** Unsupervised Paralegals
Unsupervised paralegals are those who perform tasks normally undertaken by a lawyer, including appearing in court, (Canada and England) but are not under the supervision of a lawyer. Often, they perform this work for a fee; considerably less than that charged by lawyers to perform the same work. Many lawyers’ clerks and former clerks offer similar legal services. They prepare the documents and then accompany the deponents to the COA, in most instances unknowingly to their bosses.
In Australia, the work of land brokers/conveyances, trade union industrial officers, police prosecutors, and financial counsellors could be described as unsupervised paralegals. It is obvious that it is this area of work, where individuals can do similar work to a lawyer and charge for it that causes the greatest concern for the legal profession. In most Australian states, performing this work for a fee is prevented by legislation, and this is how the profession has been able to maintain its monopoly on the delivery of legal services. Other countries have recently had to address this issue. In Guyana, the law is clear. It is a statutory offence for anyone who is not an Attorney at Law to draft any legal document except a Will (Laws of Guyana. C: 4, S 20).
Information available from the USA and Canada suggests that some work of the paralegal is often identical to that of a lawyer. The major, distinguishing feature is that paralegals frequently do not have the exclusive right of appearance in courts. It  is now different in England and Canada. Lawyers are usually highly qualified and some have become specialists in certain areas. Their time is taken up between research, conferences with clients and court appearances. Usually, paralegals are employed for their specific skills, particularly their experience within the community. Any training is normally obtained “on the job”. Although there is a desire for training courses for paralegals, there is no comprehensive training available. Instead, the JP Association seeks to provide training through seminars and workshops.
For several years, the Law Faculty of the University of Guyana has been considering to make available a paralegal course.
I know that there are a lot of obstacles. Notwithstanding that paralegals cannot continue to operate with formats and precedents. An understanding of the general principles of the law is of great importance.

** Paralegals – in whose interest?
The initial questions which must be answered when discussing developing the role of paralegals is why we need/want them?  Is cost the only rationale or are there other reasons? Are the established methods of delivering legal services not addressing the community’s needs?
As mentioned at the start of this presentation, the cost of legal services is only one of several factors that affect people’s ability to access the legal system. The way that services are delivered by legal practitioners, the type of service (or lack of service) provided by legal practitioners and where services are delivered are also issues of accessibility. The control maintained by the legal profession in the delivery of legal services, court procedure and the use of legal language are also barriers.
To answer the questions of ‘Why paralegals?’ and ‘Will the development of paralegals improve the community’s access to the legal system? Attention must be given to all of the above issues. The following paragraphs focus on three particular areas and pose several questions for further discussion.

** The legal profession and the delivery of legal services
Common complaints about the current system of delivering legal services include the lack of information given to the individual about the nature of their matter and ongoing information about what is happening, insensitivity and lack of cultural awareness on the part of the professional and not understanding the court processes and obviously the cost of obtaining legal services. But in developing alternatives to address these concerns, it must be asked: will the community be prepared to accept services from someone who is not a lawyer even if they are cheaper?
The quality of service must certainly be a concern. What does the community want from someone delivering legal services? If the community is not content with the way that legal services are currently delivered, how should it be different?
In our consumer-oriented society, the issue of cost must be balanced against the issues of quality control, supervision and regulation. These are precisely the issues that the lawyers’ professional bodies raise in support of the maintenance of their control over the delivery of legal services and in opposition to the development of unsupervised paralegals, especially the Justice of the Peace and Commissioners of Oaths to Affidavits.
My mind tells me that it is unlikely that the role of paralegals can be fully developed as independent operators.  Questions that readily come to mind are: (1) What has happened to the Paralegal system proposed for remote areas and small cases? (2) Why is it that the lay magistrate system is not yet functioning, even though the Bill was assented to? (3) Why members of the legal fraternity are not supportive of the mediation process? (4) How many persons from outside the legal profession have been engaged as mediators even though they were trained?

Delivery of Legal Services
Overseas Experience suggests that eventually the legal profession will have to acknowledge that there is some limited role for Justices of the Peace and Commissioners of Oaths to Affidavits to play in delivering legal services to the community. Further, questions then arise about the tasks Justices of the Peace and Commissioners of Oaths can perform. What levels of expertise and training are needed for these tasks? Can they be performed by the paralegals? What are the legal services that can only be performed by Attorneys at law and expert, qualified lawyers?

The tasks performed by paralegals are often called ‘routine’ or ‘simple’ but this is not always the correct classification and caution should be exercised in making these decisions. The solution to this problem may lie in an approach for the delivery of legal services where lawyers and non-lawyers work in the system where the barriers to legal services are removed.
Experience shows that often the work of paralegals is within a particular area of work. They become ‘specialists’ in that area, sometimes to the exclusion of lawyers. The idea of specialisation has recently gained acceptance in the Victorian Law Institute (O’Bryan 1989) and there is no reason to suggest that the same rationale and certification procedure could not be applicable to the Justices of the Peace and commissioners of Oaths to Affidavits/Paralegals in Guyana.

In any discussion on improving the community’s access to the legal system, the increased use of paralegals must be seen as part of an overall concern for delivering legal services and not simply as a cost-saving exercise, but also to address the more specific needs of different sections of the community in gaining access to justice, then the experience would indicate that the involvement of paralegals will assist in that aim.
The advantages of paralegals are that they have an ability to relate well with the client and provide a link to the legal system. They can work in a team and will often provide alternate strategies on solutions to a problem and at the same time often perform the task well as being cost-efficient.
It will be in the community’s interest if the development and use of paralegals have been able to break down some of the barriers to the legal services which currently exist. This is unlikely to occur if development occurs only within the private profession. The real opportunities for increased access lie with those Justices of the Peace and Commissioners of Oaths to Affidavits already committed to improving the community’s access and with the development of new areas of expertise by legal workers.
It will be in the  community’s long-term interest to encourage the growth of a new profession of paralegals that share the same work practices and approach to legal issues as the private profession. They would simply be a sub-set of the existing legal profession and it would be more in the country’s interest to make available the training and qualifications required, not only by the legal profession, but to the budding crop of legal workers.
Finally, the growth of paralegals can only play a small part in the overall aim of improving the community’s access to justice. Complementary approaches to the community’s and government’s concerns about the lack of access and cost of the legal system must include the development of various methods of alternative dispute resolution.

Allow paralegal practice through Acts of Parliament and appropriate training at all levels of the legal system to be aware of cultural, gender, race and class differences.
The development of paralegals may advance many of these suggestions, but equally if some of the above are implemented there will be greater scope for the delivery and access to legal services. It is clear there is no single solution to the problem of improving the community’s access to the legal system, but the development of paralegals through training; Formal education and certification could act as an important catalyst.
Conclusion
The role and functions of a
Justice of the Peace play an important role in the delivery of legal services to their communities. As a lay officer of the court, a JP/COA has a responsibility to perform specific judicial duties, based on authorities granted by the President of our Republic.
A JP’s conduct must accord to certain acceptable standards of conduct, standards which will ensure the maintenance of the position, credibility in the eyes of the public as well as meeting the requirements of judicial independence inherent in the position.
All Justices of the Peace should be trained before being appointed and before taking on responsibilities. There should be a strong programme of continuing education offered under the direction of a supervising judge of a Justice delivery and legal services development programme and the Justice the Peace Association.
In closing, let me state that this letter in no way tries to tarnish the legal fraternity, nor does it imply that paralegals ever take their place.
My interest is the access to legal services taking into consideration all the barriers.