Law is a service business, and secretaries are a key part of that aspect of the profession.

I noticed that some large law firms are buying out their secretarial contracts and ultimately reducing their administrative costs. Is that a wise idea?

Samuel C. Stretton.

The writer of this article thinks it is a bad idea. Clearly, with younger lawyers having great computer expertise and great typing skills, many firms don't see the need of having a secretary for each lawyer anymore. It's a dollar-and-cost issue. Like any business, if you don't need to pay for a number of secretaries, then you get rid of them and reduce the bottom line.

But there is another view on this subject. Even if lawyers do all of their own typing and some can maybe type faster than the average secretary, there is still a need for secretaries to package material, do the final copies, take briefs to copying centers, mail the items out, etc. Also, secretaries help with daily phone calls for the lawyer. Further, it's hard to imagine that clients want to pay for their lawyers to actually do the all of the copying and packaging of materials, opening new files and things of that nature. It's one thing to type a draft of a brief, or even letters, and it's another thing to have to spend the time to get it out. Secretaries protect the lawyer, handle angry clients and tell the lawyer when they are doing something wrong.

Law is a profession. Essentially law is a profession where one helps and serves their clients. Lawyers help their clients in many different ways. Whether it's forming a business, litigating disputes in the business, collecting debts, landlord/tenant, domestic disputes, criminal disputes, licensing disputes, estates and will contest, election disputes, etc. Law is a very social business. One needs time to spend time with their clients and needs a staff, not just other lawyers, to talk and calm the client down if the lawyer is not immediately available. It's what secretaries have done traditionally. Many of them have worked with the lawyer for a long period of time and become almost the lawyer's alter ego.

Further, lawyers are not just machines. The secretary provides a human side to the legal business. A secretary will tell the lawyer that the letter is too nasty. A secretary will tell the lawyer they thought he was rude or abrupt with the client. A secretary is someone who will listen to the lawyer if the lawyer is having a hard time or personal issues. A secretary will look out for the lawyer and make sure all deadlines are being met. If the lawyer is having personal issues or a drinking problem, the secretary can call the lawyer on it and assist the lawyer in getting help. A secretary, in essence, humanizes the lawyer and protects the lawyer. Further, a good secretary can correct the lawyer and tell the lawyer sometimes the error of their ways. A good loyal secretary will let the lawyer know if there are problems in the firm or if people are not satisfied with the lawyer's work.

In other words, secretaries play a much more important role in a law office than just typing and getting material out. They are the human side of the office. A secretary who is very loyal to the attorney and is looking out for the attorney is invaluable. The time pressures on the modern lawyer are extreme. Phone call after phone call or email after email or text message after text message are just overwhelming. For trial lawyers it is even worse. A good trial lawyer is often not in the office. They are in depositions or actually in the courtroom. But the loyal secretary will handle the office and keep them advised. Further, when the lawyer calls in, the loyal secretary gives the messages and they can discuss what to do and how to handle situations.

Getting rid of all those secretaries leaves a real abyss in the practice of law. Although the old "Perry Mason" TV show obviously does not accurately reflect how law is practiced, the relationship between Mason and his secretary is a classic example of how the secretary helped make the attorney.

Perhaps the bottom line is it is much better when one doesn't have secretaries and they are doing their own typing? But how does work get out? A lawyer can't just be a computer geek or legal robot. How does the lawyer work without having someone they can trust and rely on to handle issues for them? The secretary would often set the appointments for the lawyer or if the lawyer has a dinner appointment, set it up for the lawyer. Even good secretaries will set up the lawyer's doctor's appointments. All that will be gone.

Sometimes one has to step back and think what will be the future of law? Is it going to be just a lawyer and their computer and all the sophisticated technology surrounding that? Hopefully not. Law is a human business. It's a profession where one helps people. It's a profession where lawyers need social interaction. It's a profession where lawyers need someone they can trust to work with.

Getting rid of secretaries who are loyal to an individual lawyer is a big mistake.

Law is a very lonely business. It's very difficult, there are many deadlines, and one often doesn't get much praise. There is a lot of frustration. There are many cases you win and many cases you lose. Clients can be extremely difficult. In this modern world, there is overwhelming—and many times—unnecessary communication. Every lawyer needs someone working with them who he can trust, who is his quasi-friend, and who will look out for them. That was the role of the legal secretary, in addition, to typing and getting the work out.

It seems in the long run ending the role of secretaries will be a major mistake. Perhaps it is just a warning sign of where the future of law is heading. If law is going to be a technology-driven profession where human beings and humanity are second, at least in my next life, I wouldn't want to be a lawyer.

The business model, if you don't think you need it, get rid of it, is very short-sighted in terms of ending all the professional secretaries in a law office. It's a major mistake and will dramatically change the nature of the legal practice and take away the human side, the corrective side and the compassionate side that every lawyer needs to have to keep a sense of humanity. Law is a profession and it's a service business, and the secretary was a key part of the service aspect.

Victims' Rights amendment is a bad idea.

There is a Pennsylvania constitutional amendment that is on the General Election ballot. It involves placing victims' rights and victims' due process in the Constitution. Is this a good idea?

The answer is no, it's a horrible idea. The problem is it will probably be passed because who can be against victims' rights unless you truly understand the issue.

In 1998, Pennsylvania passed a statute called the Pennsylvania Crimes Victims Act. The statute gives victims various rights. It allows them to be notified of significant actions, to have family members or a victim advocate present, and it allows them to submit a comment at a defendant's sentencing. It allows them to submit comments to the district attorney's office about how to handle a case. Therefore, it doesn't seem there is a need for a constitutional amendment, particularly since a constitutional amendment is a major game changer. Some lawyers say the Crime Victims Act doesn't have any teeth to it, but that can be changed by statute  It's a bad practice to change things by constitutional amendments.

Further, the victim's rights constitutional amendment, which will appear on the November ballot seems to forget something. They want to analogize victim's rights to criminal defendant's rights. That seems a good idea on the surface, but once one thinks about it, it makes no sense at all. The reason criminal defendants have basic rights such as due process, search and seizure protections, privacy protections, right to counsel, etc. is because the criminal defendant faces the weight of the government on the other side. When someone is charged with a crime, they face the power of the government through either the U.S. Attorney's Office or district attorney's office or the Attorney General's Office.  The criminal defendant can be deprived of liberty or sometimes life. As a result, substantial due process has been built in through both the Pennsylvania and U.S. constitutions. The Bill of Rights in the U.S. Constitution is a classic example of those very basic protections that historically were justified and were of concern to the writers of the constitution.

Victims face something different. They are not facing the government. Their claims are private rights. Their claims are either against the perpetrator of the crime or related persons. In other words, they are more civil related. The government is not against the victim. Therefore, to suggest they need the same rights of a criminal defendant shows a gross misunderstanding of the process.

Further, this amendment is worrisome to say the least. It allows victims to interject into a trial. For instance, if one reads this amendment correctly, a victim could complain if a defendant asks for a continuance on a trial because their lawyer felt they weren't prepared. A judge would now have to balance the victim's rights versus the defendant's rights. One can see the problems and how that can undermine fundamental due process. Further, the victims even have rights to take appeals now. In other words, their interfering with the system could ultimately undermine and prejudice the criminal defendant. The proposed constitutional amendment on victims is not well written.

Approximately 11 states have adopted a similar victim's rights amendment. In those states, they delayed parole or probation for defendants due to the amendment. Victims have the right to an attorney and to actually bring suits. There are some attorneys who are prepared to emphasize and specialize in a victim's right practice if this new constitutional amendment is passed. The amendment would be Section 9.1 to Article 1 of the Pennsylvania Constitution. This change is called Marsy's Law. It was named after Marsy Nicholas who was murdered in 1983. Her brother, Henry Nicholas, became a pioneer of victim's rights resulting in California initially adopting a similar amendment to what is now being put before voters to vote in the November election.

Here are some potential problems. As noted, the victim has a right to be notified of every hearing. Let's say the criminal defendant files a bail motion and there is some delay or difficulty in notifying the victim. That would cause someone to remain in jail far longer and also prevent them from having a timely bail hearing, which could then affect due process and speedy trial rights. Similarly, the speedy trial rights as noted above would now be impacted by victims now potentially clamoring for a quicker trial than the defendant because perhaps the defendant needs more time to adequately prepare.

It appears that a victim can refuse to be interviewed and refuse discovery requests. What happens if the victim has a computer or phone that might exonerate the defendant but the victim won't give it up. The victim apparently has the right not to if this new amendment passes.

It also appears there will be substantial costs to either the state or county government that has to pay the bill for this. Delays in criminal trials, delays in parole and the cost of notification can be prohibitive.

One of the problems, of course, is in Pennsylvania, each county is responsible for their criminal costs. If this writer is correct, he believes, Pennsylvania is the only state that doesn't have state funding for criminal defense. Individual counties don't even pay enough money for credible criminal defense, at least in terms of conflict counsel, and the payment to public defenders is extremely low. Now each county is going to have additional expenses, which could be between $500,000 and $1 million more a year. Where is that money coming from?

Obviously, everyone should read the proposed victim's rights amendment and make their own mind up, but it doesn't appear to be a good idea. Everyone is in trouble if the criminal justice system creates new rules and regulations as constitutional amendments that interfere or affect the defendant's right to due process or a speedy trial. Those rights are the only protection that the criminal defendant has against the government. To take that away or severely impair those rights in the name of victims' rights would be a major mistake and error, particularly when there is already a victim's rights statute in place.

Chester County lawyer Samuel C. Stretton has practiced in the area of legal and judicial ethics for more than 35 years. He welcomes questions and comments from readers. If you have a question, call Stretton directly at 610-696-4243 or write to him at 301 S. High St. P.O. Box 3231, West Chester, Pennsylvania, 19381.