Can a lawyer who represents a labor union also handle personal legal matters for individual union members?

Plain-English summary

A lawyer who represented several labor unions in labor-management matters was sometimes asked by individual union members to perform personal legal services, and he often spoke before groups of union members. He described how he handled inquiries: he made clear that he primarily represented the union on labor-law problems, said he could not use the union as a source of general practice, but added that he would handle general practice for anyone who desired his services. He had not asked the unions' business representatives to refer clients, but had not told them to refrain from mentioning his name either.

Setting aside possible federal constitutional questions, the committee saw no impropriety in this approach. There was no objection to a lawyer representing a union and separately representing individual members, so long as the union was not used as a "feeder." There was likewise no objection per se to union representatives occasionally recommending the lawyer. The committee cautioned that the representation of the union should be conducted so as to avoid the taint of advertising, that meetings should not be mere excuses for the lawyer to appear and invite retention, and that referrals from business agents should not become so routine or systematic as to raise "feeder" questions.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in October 1967, before The Florida Bar's adoption of the 2006 revisions to the Rules of Professional Conduct, and before later decisions reshaping lawyer-solicitation restrictions. It applied the former Canon 35 on lay intermediaries and "feeder" arrangements. The independence of a lawyer's professional judgment is now addressed by Rule 4-5.4, conflicts by Rule 4-1.7, and solicitation by the advertising rules at Rule 4-7.18 of the Rules Regulating The Florida Bar (Model Rules 5.4, 1.7, and 7.3). 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 Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance.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: Can a union's lawyer also take on individual union members as personal clients?

A: Under this opinion, yes. The committee found no objection to a lawyer representing both a union and, separately, its individual members.

Q: What is the limit on this arrangement?

A: The union may not be used as a "feeder" of business. The committee warned against meetings used to invite retention and against referrals from business agents becoming so routine or systematic as to raise feeder concerns.

Q: Can a union representative recommend the lawyer to members?

A: The committee saw no objection per se to union representatives occasionally recommending the lawyer, as long as it did not become a systematic feeder arrangement.

Background and rules framework

The opinion applied the former Canon 35, which addressed lay intermediaries and barred a lawyer from permitting an organization to serve as a "feeder" of business. Those concerns now map to Rule 4-5.4 (professional independence) and the conflict rule 4-1.7, with solicitation governed by Rule 4-7.18, of the Rules Regulating The Florida Bar; the Model Rule analogues are Rules 5.4, 1.7, and 7.3.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• Canon 35 [Canons of Professional Ethics; intermediaries and "feeder" arrangements]

See also

• FL Bar Ethics Op. 71-4: Lawyer Also Serving as a Private Association's Executive Director
• FL Bar Ethics Op. 72-6: Recurring Referrals From an Insurance Agent

Source

• Landing page: https://www.floridabar.org/etopinions/etopinion-67-23/
• Original PDF: https://www-media.floridabar.org/uploads/2017/04/FL-Bar-Ethics-Op-67-23.pdf

Original opinion text

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

FLORIDA BAR ETHICS OPINION
OPINION 67-23
October 9, 1967
Advisory ethics opinions are not binding.
There is no ethical objection to a lawyer representing a union and separately representing its members.
Canon: 35
Chairman MacDonald stated the opinion of the committee:
A member of The Florida Bar advises that he represents several labor unions in his county in connection with various problems in the labor-management field. On occasion he has been asked by individual members of these unions to perform legal services directly for them. He states that he often is asked to speak before groups of members of the various unions which he represents. Frequently he is asked by individuals during or after such meetings whether he is available to handle personal legal problems. He stated that he has been handling such inquiries in the following manner:
I first make it clear that primarily I represent the union for labor law problems; I then state that I cannot use their union as a source of general practice, adding, however, that I will handle general practice for anyone who desires my services.
The inquirer further states that he has not requested the various business representatives of the unions to refer clients to him, but that on the other hand he has not issued any positive instructions to such representatives that they should not mention his name as a possible source of assistance to members making inquiry of the business agents. In sum, the inquirer wishes to be advised as to the propriety of continuing to proceed in this manner.
We consider this matter solely from the ethical standpoint, and lay aside various federal constitutional questions possibly lurking in the background. In so doing, we see no impropriety in the approach which is being taken. Manifestly there is no objection to the lawyer representing a union and separately representing individual members of the union so long as the union is not employed as a device for purposes of serving as a "feeder." Moreover, in the same light there would be no objection per se to representatives of the union on occasion recommending the inquirer. On the other hand, the representation of the union should be conducted in such manner as to avoid the taint of advertising. Thus the meetings should not be mere excuses for the lawyer to appear and submit himself to inquiries which will lead to his retention. Moreover, he should be careful that referrals from business agents do not become so routine or systematic as to raise questions of a "feeder" system.