What kinds of letters can a paralegal sign on the law firm's letterhead?

Plain-English summary

The Committee was asked to clarify and possibly modify its prior Opinion 296 (Supplement) on the types of correspondence non-lawyer assistants (paralegals) may sign on their employing firm's letterhead, raised in the context of a real estate practice. The inquirer argued a paralegal should be able to sign letters to mortgage companies, county clerks, title companies, and the like.

The Committee agreed, so long as the correspondence is confined to the gathering, dissemination, and filing of routine information or documents in connection with a title or mortgage closing. More broadly, it said legal assistants can greatly improve efficiency and reduce cost, and it did not intend to place artificial barriers in the way of their duties; a non-lawyer assistant may properly sign firm letterhead for routine tasks in many fields, such as gathering factual information and documents (including from governmental agencies other than tribunals), and that list is not exclusive. The Committee continued to require that the assistant's identity be clearly set forth on any such correspondence.

The Committee had more difficulty with the suggestion that correspondence with clients or other attorneys be signed by the paralegal. As with correspondence to tribunals before which only an attorney may practice, it concluded such correspondence should generally be confined to the signature of the responsible attorney. It located the governing provisions in RPC 5.3(a) and (b) (responsibilities regarding non-lawyer assistants) and RPC 5.5(b) (not assisting the unauthorized practice of law), continuing the principles of the former DR 3-101(A), DR 3-103(A), and EC 3-6.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1988, before New Jersey's adoption of the 2004 revisions to the Rules of Professional Conduct. Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance. Verify against current rules before relying on any specific rule mentioned here.

Common questions

Q: Can a paralegal sign letters to title companies, mortgage companies, and county clerks?

A: Per the opinion, yes, where the correspondence is confined to routine gathering, dissemination, and filing of information or documents (for example, in a title or mortgage closing), and the paralegal's identity is clearly set forth.

Q: Can a paralegal sign correspondence to clients or other attorneys?

A: Generally no. The Committee concluded such correspondence, like correspondence to tribunals, should generally be confined to the responsible attorney's signature.

Q: Must the letter show that a non-lawyer signed it?

A: Yes. The Committee continued to require that on all correspondence signed by a non-lawyer assistant, his or her identity be clearly set forth.

Background and rules framework

The opinion applies NJ RPC 5.3(a) and (b) (a lawyer's responsibilities for non-lawyer assistants) and RPC 5.5(b) (not assisting unauthorized practice); the corresponding Model Rules are 5.3 and 5.5. It carries forward the principles of former DR 3-101(A), DR 3-103(A), and EC 3-6, and updates the Committee's earlier Opinion 296 (Supplement).

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• MR 5.3 / NJ RPC 5.3(a), (b) (responsibilities regarding non-lawyer assistants)
• MR 5.5 / NJ RPC 5.5(b) (assisting the unauthorized practice of law)

Other opinions cited:

• ACPE Opinion 296 (Supplement), 99 N.J.L.J. 113 (1976) (paralegals signing correspondence)

See also

• NJ ACPE Op. 647: Paraprofessional Employees' Identification on Law-Firm Business Cards
• NJ ACPE Op. 740: Non-Legal Companies Furnishing Lawyers and UPL

Source

• Full text (Justia mirror): https://law.justia.com/cases/new-jersey/advisory-committee-on-professional-ethics/2004/acp611-1.html
• Issuing authority: New Jersey Supreme Court Advisory Committee on Professional Ethics, via the NJ Courts Supreme Court Committees page

Original opinion text

Reproduced from a full-text mirror of the official opinion for research purposes. The linked official source controls.

121 N.J.L.J. 301, February 18, 1988

OPINION 611

Non-Attorney (Paralegal) Assistants: Signing Correspondence

We have been asked to clarify and possibly modify prior Opinion 296 (Supplement), 99 N.J.L.J. 113 (1976) relating to the types of correspondence which non-lawyer assistants, sometimes called paralegals, may properly sign on the letterhead of the firm which employs them.

The inquiry specifically addressed the problem in the context of a real estate practice. In that context, inquirer argues that it should be proper for a paralegal to sign letterhead in correspondence with mortgage companies, offices of county clerks, title companies, and the like.

We are in accord with that view as long as the correspondence is confined to the gathering or dissemination and filing of routine information or documents in connection with a title or mortgage closing.

Generally speaking, and going beyond real estate practice, it is the sense of this Committee that the use of legal assistants can be of great benefit in increasing efficiency in the practice of law and in the consequent reduction in the cost of performing legal services, to the mutual benefit of both clients and attorneys. It is not and should not be our intention to hamstring the effectiveness of the non-lawyer assistant by placing artificial barriers in the way of the performance of his or her duties. Thus, for example, the non-lawyer assistant may, we believe, properly sign firm letterhead in connection with routine tasks in many fields of law such as the gathering of factual information and documents including from governmental agencies (other than tribunals). Our mention of these specific categories of tasks, however, should not be construed to exclude other tasks of a similar routine nature. Also, of course, we continue to require that on all correspondence signed by a non-lawyer assistant his or her identity should be clearly set forth.

The inquirer additionally suggests that correspondence "with clients or other attorneys might also be signed by the paralegal." In this area, as in correspondence with tribunals before which only an attorney is permitted to practice, we have more difficulty. We believe that the signature on such correspondence generally speaking should be confined to that of the responsible attorney. The principles expressed in our prior opinion concerning the ethical considerations relating to former DR 3-101(A) and DR 3-103(A), and former EC 3-6 remain in full force and effect. The governing provisions are presently found in RPC 5.3(a) and (b) entitled "Responsibilities Regarding Non-Lawyer Assistants" and in 5.5(b) relating to the unauthorized practice of law and prohibiting a lawyer from assisting a person who is not a member of the bar in the performance of activity that constitutes the unauthorized practice of law.