Can a lawyer suspended from practice take a job doing legal research for a law firm while his reinstatement is pending?

Plain-English summary

A member who had been suspended from practice in Florida in January 1961 for six months, and who now had a reinstatement petition pending, asked whether he could accept employment with a law firm to do legal research work, not including drawing pleadings or other legal documents.

The committee was unable to agree. One member believed it would be proper, citing Drinker at page 53 for the view that a firm in good standing would do a distinct service to the Court and the Bar by employing a lawyer who had been suspended but not permanently disbarred. Another believed the committee should not render an opinion, reasoning that the request should be directed to the Committee on Unauthorized Practice and that the committee was being asked to interpret a Supreme Court order, which it hesitated to do. The committee agreed that the matter was not a clear question of ethics.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1962, before The Florida Bar's adoption of the 2006 revisions to the Rules of Professional Conduct. The opinion applied former Canon 47 of the Canons of Professional Ethics, concerning aiding the unauthorized practice of law; the subject is now addressed by Rule 4-5.5 of the Rules Regulating The Florida Bar (Model Rule 5.5). Because the committee declined to resolve the question, the page records that the committee did not opine rather than a holding. Subsequent rule amendments or later opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance. Verify against the current rules before relying on any specific requirement mentioned here.

Common questions

Q: Did the committee decide whether a suspended lawyer can do legal research for a firm?

A: No. The committee could not agree and declined to render an opinion, concluding the matter was not a clear question of ethics.

Q: Why did the committee decline?

A: One member viewed the request as one to interpret a Supreme Court suspension order and a question for the Committee on Unauthorized Practice, rather than an ethics question the committee should resolve.

Q: What argument did the member who would allow it make?

A: That member cited Drinker at page 53, suggesting a firm in good standing would do a distinct service to the Court and the Bar by employing a lawyer who had been suspended but not permanently disbarred.

Background and rules framework

The opinion applied former Canon 47 of the Canons of Professional Ethics, concerning aiding the unauthorized practice of law. The subject is now addressed by Rule 4-5.5 of the Rules Regulating The Florida Bar (Model Rule 5.5). The committee treated the scope of a suspended lawyer's permitted activity as bound up with interpreting the court's suspension order and the unauthorized-practice rules rather than the ethics rules alone.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• Canon 47 [Canons of Professional Ethics; see current Rule 4-5.5]

Other authorities:

• Drinker, Legal Ethics, p. 53

See also

• FL Bar Ethics Op. 63-17: Suspended Lawyer Listings
• FL Bar Ethics Op. 63-37: Condo-Consulting Company

Source

• Landing page: https://www.floridabar.org/etopinions/etopinion-62-26/
• Original PDF: https://www-media.floridabar.org/uploads/2017/04/FL-Bar-Ethics-Op-62-26-1.pdf

Original opinion text

Reproduced from the official source for research purposes. The linked source is authoritative.

FLORIDA BAR ETHICS OPINION
OPINION 62-26
October 24, 1962
Advisory ethics opinions are not binding.
When an attorney suspended from practice for six months with a petition for reinstatement pending asked if he may accept legal employment to do research work for a law firm, the committee held that it was not a matter of ethics.
Canon: 47
Chairman Holcomb stated the opinion of the committee:
A member of The Florida Bar has requested an opinion from the Committee on Professional Ethics of The Florida Bar on the following matter:
He was suspended from the practice of law in Florida in January 1961 for a period of six months, with a provision that he should not apply for reinstatement until six months after January 1961 and that he now has pending such a petition. He asked whether or not it would be permissible for him to accept employment with a legal firm to do legal research work, not including the drawing of pleadings or other legal documents.
Our Committee finds itself unable to agree on the matter, one member believing that it would be proper and citing Drinker at page 53 in which it is suggested that a firm in good standing would do a distinct service to the Court and to the Bar by employing a lawyer who had been suspended and not permanently disbarred. Another member believes that we should not render an opinion, but that the request should be directed to the Committee on Unauthorized Practice, and that it would appear that we are being called on to interpret a Supreme Court order, which we hesitate to do. We all agree that it is not a clear question of ethics.