Line Between HR and the Practice of Law
wjlljr
7 Posts
[font size="1" color="#FF0000"]LAST EDITED ON 10-03-03 AT 04:05PM (CST)[/font][p]I am interested in opinions on when HR crosses the line between its functions and the functions of practicing law. The line is real fine. For example, if any hr department drafts EEOC responses for a outside client has it crossed the line. Any opinions? Any articles about this topic? How do you distinguish between HR and the practice of law?
Comments
I know lawyers (because they are greedy and think they are smarter than everyone else) would say all the time but that cannot work in the business world because of the costs.
>04:05 PM (CST)[/font]
>
>"if any hr department drafts EEOC responses for a outside
>client has it crossed the line." How do you distinguish between HR and the practice of
>law?
Not sure what you mean by drafting EEOC responses for an outside client. I would think HR would not want to do that if outside client means some client not employed by the HR employer. Otherwise, an HR person would be wise to have the company secure an employment liabilities insurance policy which provides insurance in case the employer is sued for wrongful personnel policies. the insurance company will usually be helpful in doing an HR audit for the company to give you an advance warning of policies or practices which could cause you problems down the road.
Elizabeth
Excellent point regarding the attorney/client privilege. Good value there and note protection is important.
If someone in your HR department, perhaps you, has knowledge sufficient to satisfy somebody that you could assist them in writing economical position responses to EEOC charges, there's no 'practicing law' in that, unless you say something like, "As counsel, it is my recommendation that....", and surely you would not do that.
Interpreting things (Federal Register language, Laws or Congrssional Acts, or other such stuff) would not make you guilty of practicing law without a license, whether you state your interpretation verbally or in a twelve page letter.
I know a paralegal who on the outside, prepares affirmative action plans for employers, participates in the drafting of position papers in response to charges and advises others in how to prepare for UI hearings. She charges for it. There is a clearly worded document in place that states she is not an attorney and that the relationship has no connection whatsoever with her law practice employer. She says her employer is aware of this. It's a way for her to make spare change on weekends and is certainly a lot cheaper that calling her on the law firm's clock.
I think there are terrible HR people out there, just as there are terrible lawyers & sometimes it hard to tell the difference. Some terrible HR folks think they are dispensing legal opinion, just as some terrible lawyers think they are dispensing legal opinions. x;-)
I think most attorney's are nervous about the information HR hands out, because all they hear about are the troubling situations - which naturally leads them down the path of thinking all is lost. For my part, I work hand in hand with my attorney. That means whenever I start a new company, I meet face to face with the employment attorney for about 2-4 hours - it's expensive at first, but the pay-off is huge - I understand where they are coming from and vice versa. Next, I make sure my handbook is in line and then send it to the attorney for review - important step in that they have to know what are policies are in order to defend us. Finally, any time I feel out of my depth, meaning very specifically that I have never had the situation pop up & with my many readings & the help of the Washington State Employment Law Letter I think the situation could cause the company problems - I fly a call to the attorney.
It's not an us against them mentality - at least from my HR perspective - and I'm confused as to why attorney's create the mentality - but I realize that most conflict, if not all, usually boils down to money.