🧪 TEST MODE ACTIVE Use test card: 4242 4242 4242 4242
ISBA March 1, 1989

Can a law firm let a collection agency's staff, or place its own paralegal at the agency's office, to field collection calls in the firm's name?

Short answer: The opinion concluded both arrangements are improper: a client's own employee fielding calls in the firm's name aids the unauthorized practice of law, and the firm's own paralegal taking calls at the client's office without lawyer supervision violates the rule requiring supervision and responsibility.

Apply this to your situation

This page answers the general question as of 1989. Ezel answers yours: whether it's allowed on your facts, under the current Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct, with citations.

Currency note: this opinion is from 1989
Subsequent statutory amendments, court decisions, or later opinions or rule amendments may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current legal advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or remedy mentioned here.
Disclaimer: Advisory only. Not binding precedent.
About this page: The plain-English summary, reader guidance, and Q&A below were written by Ezel based on the official ethics opinion. The original opinion (linked on this page) is the authoritative source for any reliance.

Plain-English summary

A law firm represented a collection agency and proposed two arrangements. In the first, a "paraprofessional" employed by the collection agency would accept phone calls at the agency's office on behalf of the law firm and negotiate with debtors. In the second, a legal assistant employed by the law firm would be stationed at the agency's office to take calls and discuss collection matters. The inquiry asked whether either was improper.

The committee applied former Rule 3-101, which bars a lawyer from aiding a nonlawyer in the unauthorized practice of law and permits delegation to a nonlawyer only where the lawyer actually supervises the nonlawyer and assumes complete responsibility for the work. It also cited Ill. Rev. Stat. ch. 13, sec. 1, which forbids practicing law or receiving compensation for legal services without a license. On the first arrangement, the committee concluded that the agency's "paraprofessional" is neither employed by nor supervised by the attorney, so the procedure creates the impression of impropriety and could constitute aiding the unauthorized practice of law in violation of Rule 3-101 and the statute.

On the second arrangement, the committee concluded that having the firm's legal assistant take calls and discuss collection matters at the client's office without any lawyer supervision would, at the very least, violate Rule 3-101's requirement that the lawyer supervise the nonlawyer he employs and take complete responsibility for that work.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in March 1989, under the former Illinois Code of Professional Responsibility and before Illinois adopted the 1990 (and later 2010) Rules of Professional Conduct. The ISBA Board of Governors affirmed the opinion in May 2010 as generally consistent with the 2010 Rules (Rules 5.4 and 5.5(a)), while cautioning that the specific standards referenced may differ from the 2010 Rules. Subsequent rule amendments or later opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance. Verify against current rules before relying on any specific rule or requirement mentioned here.

Common questions

Q: Can a law firm let a client's own employee answer calls and negotiate in the firm's name?

A: The opinion concluded no; because the client's employee is not employed or supervised by the attorney, the arrangement could constitute aiding the unauthorized practice of law under former Rule 3-101 and the Illinois licensing statute.

Q: Can the firm instead station its own paralegal at the client's office to handle collection calls?

A: Per the opinion, not without lawyer supervision; an unsupervised legal assistant discussing collection matters at the client's office violates Rule 3-101's requirement that the lawyer supervise and take complete responsibility for the nonlawyer's work.

Background and rules framework

The opinion applied former Illinois Code Rule 3-101 (aiding the unauthorized practice of law; permissible delegation to supervised nonlawyers) and Ill. Rev. Stat. ch. 13, sec. 1 (the licensing requirement). The Board's 2010 affirmation maps the analysis to current Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct 5.4 (professional independence) and 5.5(a) (unauthorized practice), corresponding to ABA Model Rules 5.4 and 5.5.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

  • Illinois Code Rule 3-101 (former Code, applied in the opinion)
  • Illinois RPC 5.4, 5.5(a) (2010 equivalents per the Board's affirmation)
  • MR 5.4 (professional independence), MR 5.5 (unauthorized practice)

Statutes:

  • Ill. Rev. Stat. ch. 13, sec. 1 (licensing required to practice law or receive compensation for legal services)

See also

Source

Get today's answer for your situation

You just read a 1989 opinion on this question. Ezel checks the current Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct and answers your specific situation, with citations.

Opens in Ezel Pro. Every answer cites the rules it relies on.