Within the first few weeks, the gaps began to appear. Tasks that were supposed to be familiar required more direction than expected. Experience that sounded extensive during the interview turned out to be limited exposure. The candidate had worked in the right practice area, but their actual responsibilities weren’t what the firm had assumed.
I’ve seen versions of this happen many times over the years, and it points to one of the harder parts of hiring paralegals: Being around the work isn’t necessarily the same as owning the work.
A Resume Tells You Where Someone Worked. It Doesn’t Tell You How They Worked
If a paralegal spent five years at a personal injury firm, it’s reasonable to assume they have personal injury experience. But that still leaves a lot of unanswered questions. Did they manage cases from intake through settlement? Draft discovery? Prepare demand packages? Review medical records? Communicate directly with clients? Manage litigation deadlines? Or did they spend most of those five years handling one specific part of the process? A paralegal may have spent years working in a practice area without gaining experience in every part of the workflow your firm needs them to handle.
I see the same issue across practice areas. A candidate may say they have extensive litigation experience but have never independently prepared discovery responses. They may have worked on federal matters without actually handling federal e-filing. They may list estate planning experience but have primarily handled administrative work rather than drafting. None of that necessarily makes the person a poor candidate. It simply means the label on the resume isn’t enough information to make a hiring decision.
One of the Best Questions Is: “What Did the Team Look Like?”
When I’m evaluating a paralegal’s background, I often want to understand the environment they worked in just as much as the type of law they practiced.
How many attorneys were there?
How many paralegals?
Were there legal assistants or other support staff?
How many attorneys did the candidate personally support?
How was the work divided?
Those questions can completely change how you interpret someone’s experience. A paralegal who was the primary support person for two attorneys may have managed matters comprehensively, from calendaring and client communication through discovery, drafting, filing, and trial preparation.
At a large firm, another paralegal may have worked on a team where responsibilities were highly specialized. One group handled discovery. Another handled medical records. Another handled filings. Another communicated with clients.
Both may have five years of experience in the same practice area, but they haven’t necessarily developed the same capabilities. The environment tells you what “five years of experience” actually means.
Ask Them to Walk You Through the Work
One of the easiest ways to get past polished interview answers is to stop asking only whether someone has done something and ask them to explain how they did it.
Instead of:
“Tell me about your litigation experience.”
Try:
“Walk me through a case you supported from the beginning. What were you responsible for?”
Then listen.
If they handled discovery, ask what that meant in their role. What types of discovery did they prepare? Who gathered the information? Did they draft responses? Prepare objections? Communicate with the client? Track outstanding responses? What happened when something was incomplete?
If they say they handled e-filing, ask which courts they filed in and what systems they used.
If they say they managed deadlines, ask how they calculated them, where they tracked them, and what their process was for making sure nothing was missed.
Questions such as “Have you drafted pleadings?” or “Are you comfortable with e-filing?” are useful, but they’re a starting point. The more important questions are what they actually drafted, how often they did it, what they handled independently, and what required attorney review.
You’re not trying to catch the candidate in a “gotcha” moment. You’re trying to understand how much of the process they owned. A person with deep, hands-on experience can usually talk about the work with specificity. They remember the process, the decisions, the problems they encountered, and how they handled them. That level of detail is difficult to manufacture.
Exposure, Experience, and Ownership Are Not the Same Thing
Someone can have exposure to a type of work because they worked on a team where someone else was responsible for it. They can have experience because they’ve performed the work repeatedly. And they can have ownership because they were responsible for making sure the work was completed correctly and on time. Those are three very different levels of capability.
Consider discovery. A paralegal who has been involved in hundreds of discovery matters may know the terminology and general process. But if attorneys always drafted the responses and the paralegal only organized documents, that is different from someone who drafted responses, coordinated information with clients, tracked outstanding items, and managed the process through completion.
What matters is whether the work they’ve actually performed, and the level of responsibility they’ve had, match what your firm needs them to handle.
That’s particularly important when you’re hiring someone because you need them to reduce the attorney’s workload. If the position requires significant supervision, the firm may not get the capacity it expected.
You Don’t Need a Perfect Candidate. You Need an Accurate Picture.
Every experienced paralegal will need to learn a new firm’s systems, preferences, clients, technology, and workflows. I’m not looking for someone who can walk through the door and immediately know how your firm operates. What I want to know is what they can realistically take ownership of from the beginning, and what they will need to learn.
Sometimes a candidate with slightly less experience is the better hire because they are transparent about what they know and eager to build on it. I’ve also seen candidates with impressive resumes struggle because the depth of their experience wasn’t what the firm assumed.
That’s why I encourage attorneys to look past the number of years and the practice-area label. Ask what the person actually did, how independently they worked, and what they were responsible for.
Because the interview may tell you that someone can do the job. The quality of your questions determines how much you’ll know about what that really means.
FAQs
How can an attorney tell whether a paralegal has real hands-on experience?
Ask them to walk you through specific examples of work they’ve handled. Don’t just ask whether they’ve done something. Ask what they actually did, how often they did it, what they were responsible for, and what required attorney involvement. The more specific they can be, the better sense you’ll get of their experience.
What's the difference between paralegal experience and ownership?
Experience means someone has performed a particular type of work. Ownership means they’ve been responsible for making sure the work gets done and nothing falls through the cracks. Someone may have worked on plenty of cases involving a particular process without ever having been responsible for managing it themselves.
How does Equivity evaluate the experience of its virtual paralegals?
We look beyond practice-area labels and years of experience. We want to understand what someone has actually done, how independently they’ve worked, and whether their background lines up with the work a law firm needs help with.
What should a law firm focus on when hiring an experienced paralegal?
Start with what you actually need the paralegal to handle. Look at the kind of work they’ve done, how independently they’ve handled it, and whether they’re comfortable managing the types of matters and responsibilities the position involves. Years of experience and practice-area familiarity are helpful, but they don’t tell you everything.