Can a lawyer sign and mail collection demand letters that bank employees fill in without his supervision?

Plain-English summary

An attorney who regularly represented a bank in collection matters proposed to prepare a form demand letter leaving blanks for the amount, date, and other particulars of individual loans, and to furnish the bank with the form and a supply of his stationery. Bank employees would prepare individual letters by inserting the correct amounts and dates, then return the unsigned letters to the attorney for review, signature, and mailing. He asked whether the procedure was proper.

The committee concluded the procedure was improper and violated Canon 3. While EC 3-6 approves and encourages delegation of work to lay persons, it requires the attorney to maintain a direct relationship with the client, supervise the delegated work, and have complete professional responsibility for the work product. Those requirements were not met where the letters were mass-produced as part of an outside operation and the professional responsibility consisted solely in signing letters prepared by others. The committee cited Opinion 70-27, in which it had condemned a similar proposal that differed only in that the demand letters carried the client's return address, and saw no difference between the two.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1975, before The Florida Bar's adoption of the 2006 revisions to the Rules of Professional Conduct. It applied the former Code of Professional Responsibility, which has since been replaced. Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance. Verify against current Rules 4-5.3 and 4-5.5 before relying on any specific requirement mentioned here.

Common questions

Q: Can a lawyer sign collection letters that a client's employees fill in?

A: The opinion concluded he may not sign and mail form collection letters completed in material part by bank employees who are not acting under his supervision and control.

Q: What was wrong with the arrangement?

A: Per the opinion, it violated Canon 3 because the letters were mass-produced as part of an outside operation and the lawyer's professional responsibility consisted solely in signing letters prepared by others, not the supervision EC 3-6 requires.

Background and rules framework

The opinion applied Canon 3 and EC 3-6 of the former Code of Professional Responsibility, governing delegation to nonlawyers and the prevention of unauthorized practice. Those subjects correspond to Model Rule 5.3 (responsibilities regarding nonlawyer assistance) and Model Rule 5.5 (unauthorized practice of law); the current Florida counterparts are Rules 4-5.3 and 4-5.5.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct (as cited, former Code):

• CPR Canon 3; EC 3-6 (delegation to and supervision of lay persons)

Other opinions cited:

• Florida Bar Opinion 70-27

See also

• FL Bar Ethics Op. 75-30: Advertising a Referral Service

Source

• Landing page: https://www.floridabar.org/etopinions/etopinion-75-4/
• Original PDF: https://www-media.floridabar.org/uploads/2017/04/FL-Bar-Ethics-Op-75-4-1.pdf

Original opinion text

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

FLORIDA BAR ETHICS OPINION
OPINION 75-4
April 14, 1975
Advisory ethics opinions are not binding.
An attorney who regularly represents a bank in collection matters may not sign and mail form collection letters completed in material part by bank employees not acting under the attorney's supervision and control.
CPR: Canon 3; EC 3-6
Opinion: 70-27
Vice Chairman Sullivan stated the opinion of the committee:
The inquiring attorney represents a bank and has regularly represented that institution in collection matters, including preparation of demand letters when those collection matters are referred to him.
He proposes to prepare a form letter making demand for payment but leaving blanks for amount, date and other particulars of individual loans. He would furnish the bank with his form letter together with a supply of his stationery. Bank employees would then prepare individual letters, inserting the correct amounts and date and then return the unsigned letters to the attorney for review, signature and mailing.
He asks for the Committee's opinion as to the propriety of this procedure.
The Committee is of the opinion that the proposed procedure is improper and violates Canon 3. While EC 3-6 approves and encourages delegation of work to lay persons, it requires that the attorney maintain a direct relationship with the client, supervise the delegated work and have complete professional responsibility for the work product.
These requirements are not met when the letters are mass produced as part of an outside operation and where the professional responsibility consists solely in signing letters prepared by others.
In Opinion 70-27, the Committee condemned a similar proposal which differed from the present one only in the fact that the demand letters contained the client's return address. The Committee sees no difference between the two.