May a lawyer in the National Guard or military Reserve, while on drill or short active duty, perform civilian legal work (wills, abstracts, personal legal problems) for unit personnel?

Plain-English summary

The committee took up a report that Bar members serving in the National Guard or the Reserve components were being required, during drill periods or short tours of active duty, to perform legal services for the personnel of their organizations that had nothing to do with their military training, such as preparing wills, examining abstracts, and consulting on other civilian legal problems. The question was whether such services violate ethical principles.

The committee acknowledged that Guard and Reserve officers on active duty, even briefly, are fully subject to military orders. It nonetheless concluded that using their services in this way not only fails to accomplish the purpose of the active duty, which is furthering their knowledge of their duties in the legal branch of the Service, but actually constitutes an improper practice, in the same manner that such services performed by counsel for a union or trade association for individual members have been condemned. It cited ABA Opinion No. 273 and the Association's own Opinions Nos. 55 and 153.

The opinion carries a procedural note. It was prepared by a member of the committee and was not approved by the Legal Ethics Committee, which believed this was not a proper subject for the Ethics Committee's consideration; it was nonetheless approved by the Executive Council and ordered published.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1964, decades before Oklahoma replaced its original Rules of Professional Conduct (patterned on the ABA Canons of Professional Ethics) with the Oklahoma Rules of Professional Conduct (adopted 1988) and the later Ethics 2000 revisions. As the opinion itself notes, it was not approved by the Legal Ethics Committee but was published on the order of the Executive Council. Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance. Verify against current rules before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or requirement mentioned here.

Common questions

Q: Could a Reserve or Guard lawyer prepare wills or examine abstracts for unit members while on duty?

A: No. The committee concluded that performing such personal civilian legal work for unit personnel during drills or short active duty is an improper practice and defeats the purpose of the active duty.

Q: Why did the committee treat this as improper?

A: It analogized the arrangement to legal services rendered by counsel for a union or trade association to its individual members, conduct the committee said had already been condemned, citing ABA Opinion No. 273 and Oklahoma Opinions Nos. 55 and 153.

Q: Was this opinion approved by the Ethics Committee?

A: No. The opinion states it was prepared by a committee member and not approved by the Legal Ethics Committee, which thought the subject improper for it, but it was approved by the Executive Council and ordered published.

Background and rules framework

The opinion treated a Guard or Reserve lawyer's rendering of personal civilian legal services to unit personnel as an improper practice, drawing on the line of authority condemning counsel for a union or trade association serving its individual members. It relied on ABA Opinion No. 273 and Oklahoma Opinions Nos. 55 and 153. The opinion predates the Model Rules and made no Model Rule citation, and cited no canon by number.

Citations and references

Other opinions cited:

• ABA Opinion No. 273: cited for the impropriety of counsel for a union or trade association rendering legal services to individual members.
• Oklahoma Opinions Nos. 55 and 153: the Association's prior opinions on the same line of impropriety.

See also

• Okla. Bar Ethics Op. 221: Trade association directing members to a retained attorney
• Okla. Bar Ethics Op. 207: Insurance company ad announcing a lawyer as its special representative
• Okla. Bar Ethics Op. 222: Former prosecutor representing a former defendant in restoration

Source

• Landing page: https://www.okbar.org/ethics/ethics-opinion-no-228/

Original opinion text

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

Adopted April 16, 1964

INQUIRY

It has come to our attention that members of the Bar who are in the National Guard or the Reserve components of the armed forces are being required to perform legal services for the personnel of their organizations during drill periods or short tours of active duty which in no way pertain to their military training; to wit, preparation of wills, examination of abstracts, consultation on other civilian legal problems. We are asked if such services violate ethical principles.

OPINION

While it is recognized that National Guard and Reserve Officers on active duty for even short periods are fully subject to military orders, it is felt that utilization of their services in the manner indicated in the inquiry not only fails to accomplish the purpose of their active duty (i. e. furtherance of their knowledge of their duties in the legal branch of their Service) but actually constitutes an improper practice in the same manner that such services performed by counsel for a union or trade association for individual members thereof has been condemned.

Opinion No. 273 of ABA and Nos. 55 and 153 of this Association.

• The foregoing opinion was prepared by a member of the committee, was not approved by the Legal Ethics Committee because it was believed that this was not a proper subject for consideration by the Ethics Committee. Nevertheless, the opinion was approved by the Executive Council and ordered published.