ETMD EP Paralegals common mistakes
ETMD EP Paralegals · Understand the traps and how to avoid them.
When a supervising attorney asks for a summary of a new client's situation, the paralegal gives detailed legal advice about the client's rights and likely outcome instead of reporting the facts and asking the attorney for direction.
The paralegal wants to be helpful and demonstrate competence, and may not recognize that explaining legal consequences crosses into unauthorized practice of law. The line between factual information and legal advice feels blurry in everyday conversation.
What to do instead
Before responding, ask: 'Am I telling the client what the law means for them, or am I reporting facts to my supervisor?' When speaking with clients, use phrases like 'I will relay this to the attorney' and 'The attorney will explain your options.' Keep a personal checklist of UPL triggers (advising, predicting outcomes, choosing documents for a client's specific situation) and review it before client interactions.
In a research memo, the paralegal cites a case by name and year but omits the court, reporter volume, and page, or cites a statute without the code section and year.
The paralegal relies on memory or a quick web search and assumes the reader will recognize the case. Bluebook and local citation rules are seen as nitpicky, and the paralegal may not have had formal citation training.
What to do instead
Use a citation checklist for every authority: full case name, volume, reporter, page, court, year; for statutes, title, section, and year. Run each citation through a citator (Shepard's or KeyCite) and verify the full citation from the source document, not from a secondary summary. Keep a one-page citation template at the desk and apply it mechanically.
When drafting a complaint or motion, the paralegal mixes up legal conclusions with factual allegations, writing 'Defendant breached the contract' as a standalone paragraph without supporting facts about the agreement, performance, and breach.
The paralegal copies language from a sample or prior pleading without understanding that pleadings must give fair notice through facts, and that conclusions alone can be struck or dismissed. Time pressure encourages template reuse.
What to do instead
For each cause of action, outline the elements first, then write one factual paragraph per element using who, what, when, where, and how. Have the attorney review the element-by-element outline before you draft the full document. Use a self-edit pass that flags any sentence containing a legal term of art and asks 'What fact supports this?'
In a family law matter, the paralegal prepares a child support calculation using the state guideline formula and gives the client a dollar figure without attorney review, then tells the client 'this is what you will get.'
The paralegal has done the math correctly and wants to give the client a useful answer. Guideline calculations feel objective, so the paralegal does not see the calculation as legal advice or recognize that deviations, income imputation, and custody adjustments require attorney judgment.
What to do instead
Treat any guideline calculation as a draft for attorney review. When speaking with the client, say: 'I have prepared a worksheet for the attorney to review; the attorney will discuss the numbers with you.' Never state or imply a predicted amount. Log the calculation in the file with a note that it is preliminary and not reviewed.
When asked to file a document, the paralegal misses the deadline because they counted calendar days instead of court days, or forgot that the last day fell on a weekend or holiday and did not roll forward to the next business day.
The paralegal uses ordinary date arithmetic and does not check the applicable rules (e.g., FRCP 6, state equivalents, local rules) for how to compute time. Court-day versus calendar-day distinctions and holiday rules are easy to overlook under pressure.
What to do instead
Use a deadline checklist: identify the triggering event, the rule that sets the period, whether days are calendar or court days, and whether the last day is a weekend or holiday. Calculate the deadline, then independently verify it with a second method (court calendar or a colleague). Enter the deadline in the tickler system with a reminder at least five business days before.
In a criminal matter, the paralegal tells the client that the prosecutor 'has to' turn over a particular piece of evidence because of Brady, or advises the client to plead guilty to get a lesser sentence.
The paralegal has read about Brady and plea bargaining and wants to reassure the client. They do not appreciate that applying constitutional rules to the client's facts and advising on plea choices are legal judgments reserved for the attorney.
What to do instead
Redirect legal questions to the attorney: 'That is a question for your attorney; I will note it for them.' For discovery issues, prepare a factual summary of what the client says happened and what evidence exists, and give it to the attorney. Never characterize the strength of the evidence or the likely sentence.
When preparing a deed or promissory note, the paralegal copies a form from another state or an old file and does not update the statutory references, recording requirements, or notary language for the current jurisdiction.
Forms look official and are convenient. The paralegal may not know that deed forms, acknowledgment language, and recording fees vary by state and county, and that using an outdated form can void the instrument or cause rejection at the recorder's office.
What to do instead
Before using any real estate form, confirm the current version from the jurisdiction's official source (e.g., county recorder, state bar, or statute). Check the required elements: grantor/grantee names, consideration, legal description, signature, notary acknowledgment, and recording cover sheet. Have the attorney review the completed draft before signing, and call the recorder's office to confirm current fees and formatting.
During a client interview, the paralegal asks leading questions and fills in gaps with assumptions, then writes an intake memo that states facts the client never actually said.
The paralegal wants a complete story and unconsciously supplies details from similar cases. Leading questions feel efficient, and the paralegal may not have been trained in open-ended interviewing.
What to do instead
Use open-ended prompts ('Tell me what happened next') and follow with who/what/when/where/how questions. When the client is vague, ask 'How do you know that?' and record the source. In the memo, distinguish 'Client stated' from 'Client believes' and leave blanks rather than guessing. Review the memo with the client to confirm accuracy before it goes to the attorney.
When organizing a case file, the paralegal relies on memory or a single folder structure and cannot produce a requested document quickly, or files privileged attorney-client communications in the general correspondence folder.
The paralegal has not adopted a consistent filing protocol and does not recognize that privileged materials must be segregated to avoid inadvertent production. Under deadline pressure, saving to the desktop or a personal folder seems faster.
What to do instead
Adopt a written file plan: separate folders for pleadings, discovery, correspondence, privileged communications, and research. Label privileged documents at creation and store them in a restricted folder. At the end of each day, file all loose documents. Before any production, run a privilege check and have the attorney confirm the privilege log.
When asked about court structure or jurisdiction, the paralegal states that a federal court can hear any case, or that a state court can hear a federal question case, without checking subject-matter jurisdiction and venue.
The paralegal confuses personal jurisdiction with subject-matter jurisdiction and has not internalized the limited jurisdiction of federal courts. Court names and hierarchies sound similar, and the paralegal may not have had a structured review of jurisdiction.
What to do instead
Memorize the two-step jurisdiction analysis: (1) subject-matter jurisdiction (federal question or diversity with amount in controversy) and (2) personal jurisdiction and venue. For every case, write a short jurisdiction memo citing the statute (28 U.S.C. § 1331 or § 1332) and the venue rule. Review the state court hierarchy and the federal district/circuit structure until you can draw it from memory.