3.1 NFPA Model Code and Rules of Professional Conduct

The Paralegal CORE Competency Exam (PCCE) does not test a vague “be honest” slogan. It tests ethics against the National Federation of Paralegal Associations (NFPA) ethics frame, then asks you to apply that frame to a workplace scenario. NFPA first adopted its Model Code of Ethics and Professional Responsibility in May 1993. In April 1997 it added Model Disciplinary Rules so the canons could be enforced rather than treated as purely aspirational. On June 18, 2022 the NFPA Delegate Assembly comprehensively updated the document, dropped the word “Model” from the title, and sunsetted the separate Guidelines for Enforcement into the NFPA Policy & Procedure Manual (minor Board updates followed on July 19, 2022). The current official title is the Code of Ethics and Professional Responsibility. PCCE blueprint language still says “NFPA code of ethics.” Treat the 2022 Code as the current text and memorize the eight numbered Rules that have been the exam’s spine for decades.

Every Rule is followed by Ethical Considerations (EC-) that supply the testable details. The Code also warns every paralegal to consider the specific ethics rules and case law of the jurisdiction where they work. PCCE is a national exam, so it tests general principles. When a fact pattern says “the jurisdiction follows the ABA Model Rules,” apply the Model Rule. Do not invent an unpublished state exception.

The eight NFPA Rules

Rules 1.5 and 1.6 are developed in the next ethics chapter. This chapter uses them only to show how the NFPA Code and the attorney rules lock together. Rules 1.7 and 1.8 are the rest of this chapter.

How ABA Model Rules reach a paralegal

A traditional paralegal is almost never a member of a state bar. The American Bar Association (ABA) Model Rules of Professional Conduct therefore do not “license” the paralegal. They bind the supervising attorney, and through that attorney they define what the paralegal may do. State supreme courts adopt some version of the Model Rules under names the PCCE blueprint lists side by side: Rules of Professional Conduct (RPC), Rules of Professional Responsibility, or Rules of Ethical Conduct. When an item says the firm “follows the RPC” or “the Rules of Responsibility,” it is pointing at this attorney-facing layer, not at a second secret paralegal statute.

Four ABA Rules appear over and over on paralegal ethics items.

Rule 5.3 — Responsibilities Regarding Nonlawyer Assistance. With respect to a nonlawyer employed, retained, or associated with a lawyer: (a) a partner, and a lawyer who individually or with other lawyers has comparable managerial authority, shall make reasonable efforts to ensure the firm has measures giving reasonable assurance that the person’s conduct is compatible with the lawyer’s professional obligations; (b) a lawyer with direct supervisory authority over the nonlawyer shall make the same reasonable efforts as to that person; and (c) the lawyer is responsible for conduct that would violate the Rules if engaged in by a lawyer if the lawyer orders or, with knowledge, ratifies the conduct, or if the lawyer is a partner/manager or direct supervisor, knows of the conduct at a time when its consequences can be avoided or mitigated, and fails to take reasonable remedial action. Comment guidance treats secretaries, investigators, law-student interns, paraprofessionals, and outside vendors (e-discovery hosts, copy shops, cloud storage) as within the Rule. Reasonable efforts means policies, training, and actual review — not a once-a-year lecture and a stack of unsupervised pleadings.

Rule 5.5 — Unauthorized Practice of Law; Multijurisdictional Practice of Law. A lawyer shall not practice in a jurisdiction in violation of that jurisdiction’s regulation of the legal profession, or assist another in doing so. If you give legal advice, set a fee, or appear as counsel, you are not only committing UPL yourself; you are handing the supervising attorney a 5.5 problem. The rest of Rule 5.5 (temporary practice, in-house counsel, pro hac vice) is about lawyers crossing state lines. Do not confuse it with a freelance paralegal “temporarily” serving the public.

Rule 1.6 — Confidentiality of Information and Rule 1.7 — Conflict of Interest: Current Clients are the attorney duties that NFPA Rules 1.5 and 1.6 mirror. The paralegal is an agent of the lawyer. A hallway leak, an unlocked remote desktop, or an undisclosed prior-matter conflict is attributed to the lawyer.

Rules 7.1–7.3 govern communications about a lawyer’s services and solicitation. They are the backbone of section 3.3.

ABA Formal Opinion 506 (2023) is a useful modern illustration of Rule 5.3 plus Rule 5.5: trained intake staff may check conflicts, collect basic eligibility facts, and explain how the firm charges fees, but the prospective client must still be able to discuss the fee agreement and the scope of representation with the lawyer, and whether a nonlawyer may answer a specific legal question depends on the question and the jurisdiction. On the PCCE, a specific “should I take this settlement / file in this court” question is routed to the attorney.

Competence and candor

NFPA Rule 1.1 requires a high level of competence. The Code defines competency as the demonstration of diligence, education, skill, and preparation reasonably necessary for the performance of paralegal services. EC-1.1(a) says competency comes from education (including continuing legal education), training, and work experience. EC-1.1(b) aspires to a minimum of twelve (12) hours of continuing legal education every two years, including at least two (2) hours of ethics, with the option to use diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) education as one ethics credit hour. That aspirational Code number is not the CORE Registered Paralegal (CRP) renewal rule. CRP renewal currently requires 8 CLE hours every two years, including 1 ethics hour and 1 DEI hour. Mixing those two clocks is a designed trap.

EC-1.1(c) requires assignments to be performed promptly and efficiently to the supervising attorney’s satisfaction. EC-1.1(d) requires the paralegal to stay current on legal applications, electronic communication, and device and data security in the office and remotely. EC-1.1(e) requires cultural competence and an understanding of implicit and explicit bias that could affect work with diverse populations.

Candor is the lawyer’s duty of honesty toward tribunals (ABA Model Rule 3.3) and of truthfulness in statements to others (Rule 4.1). A paralegal who knows a declaration is false, who is asked to backdate a certificate of service, or who hears the attorney plan to conceal a controlling adverse case cannot “smooth it over” by rewriting the document into better-sounding legal advice. Candor is not optional because the signature on the pleading is the attorney’s. Integrity under NFPA Rule 1.2 also forbids fraudulent billing: inflating hours, misrepresenting who performed a task, or submitting false expense documentation.

The affirmative duty when you discover attorney misconduct

This is a high-yield PCCE pattern. You discover padded time, a forged client signature, a trust-account dip, or an instruction to hide a document. The Code does not tell you to become the client’s secret lawyer and fix the legal problem yourself.

NFPA EC-1.3(d) requires a paralegal to advise the proper authority of non-confidential knowledge of any action of another legal professional that clearly demonstrates fraud, deceit, dishonesty, or misrepresentation. The authority depends on the nature and circumstances of the possible misconduct: supervising attorney, firm or corporate ethics counsel, ethics committees of law firms or paralegal associations, local or state bar associations, local prosecutors, or administrative agencies. Failure to report such knowledge is itself misconduct.

EC-1.3(e) lets the paralegal consult the NFPA Ethics Board (ethics@paralegals.org) if asked or directed to assist in an act that violates the Code or the law of the jurisdiction. EC-1.3(f) is sharper: knowledge of future criminal activity relating to a client must be reported to the supervising attorney immediately.

The exam-safe sequence is report up, refuse the illegal or unethical task, and do not independently give legal advice to “make the client whole.” Going straight to the state bar as a first move can be premature if a supervisor can still remediate — ABA Rule 5.3(c)(2) is built around timely remedial action. Resigning the same afternoon without telling anyone does not satisfy EC-1.3(d). Recoding the dishonest entries yourself so the client “isn’t hurt” is still a quiet cover-up, and it usually requires you to exercise legal judgment about what the client is owed.

NFPA versus state bar discipline

Because most paralegals are not bar-licensed, a state bar cannot “disbar” them. Three other systems do the work:

1. UPL statutes, court injunctions, and sometimes criminal prosecution — aimed at the nonlawyer who practiced law.
2. Employment and malpractice consequences — discharge, reference damage, and the supervising attorney’s bar discipline under Rules 5.3 and 5.5.
3. Association and credential ethics — NFPA membership and CRP / Registered Paralegal (RP) credentials can be sanctioned under the Code; the National Association of Legal Assistants (NALA) and state associations have parallel canons.

That is why a well-written PCCE item rarely ends with “the paralegal will be disbarred.” It ends with refuse, disclose nonlawyer status, report up, or refer the person to a licensed attorney. Know which system you are in before you pick the remedy.