Can an Oregon law firm give a law school graduate awaiting bar admission the work of a first-year associate?
Apply this to your situation
This page answers the general question as of 2021. Ezel answers yours: whether it's allowed on your facts, under the current Oregon Rules of Professional Conduct, with citations.
Plain-English summary
The opinion addresses a firm that hires a law school graduate expecting them to pass the bar and join as an associate, and wants to assign first-year-associate work before admission. It answers "Yes," subject to conditions.
The opinion starts from the premise that an unadmitted graduate is not licensed to practice law (ORS 9.220, 9.210), that Oregon prohibits the unauthorized practice of law (ORS 9.160, Oregon RPC 5.5(a)), and that lawyers may not assist a nonlawyer in unauthorized practice (Oregon RPC 5.3, RPC 8.4(a)(1)). But it concludes that nonlawyers may perform a wide variety of legal work under proper supervision. Quoting State ex rel. Oregon State Bar v. Lenske, the opinion concludes a lawyer may employ nonlawyers for any task except counseling clients on legal matters, engaging directly in the practice of law, or appearing in court or formal proceedings, so long as the lawyer takes the work, vouches for it to the client, and is responsible for it.
Applying RPC 5.3, the opinion concludes a supervised graduate may conduct factual and legal research; draft contracts, affidavits, and memoranda; interview witnesses and clients for information-gathering; prepare documents for a lawyer's review and signature; file executed documents; and offer legal conclusions to the firm. The graduate acts for the supervising lawyer, who must review and remains responsible for the work. The opinion sets two further limits: under RPC 5.4(a) the graduate may not receive a share of legal fees, and under RPC 5.5(b)(2) and RPC 7.1 the graduate may not hold out as an admitted lawyer, so the firm must ensure email signatures, letterhead, voicemail, and other communications are not false or misleading. The opinion notes its conclusion aligns with opinions from Illinois, Iowa, South Carolina, and Pennsylvania.
In practice
Under this opinion, an Oregon firm may treat an unadmitted graduate much like a first-year associate for back-office legal work, as long as a licensed lawyer supervises, reviews, and owns the work product, and the graduate is kept away from client counseling, court appearances, fee-sharing, and any communication suggesting they are already a lawyer. The opinion treats supervision and the prohibition on holding out as the two pillars that keep the arrangement out of unauthorized-practice territory.
Common questions
Q: Can an unadmitted law graduate do legal research and drafting at an Oregon firm?
A: Yes, under supervision. The opinion concludes a supervised graduate may conduct research, draft memoranda and contracts, interview witnesses for fact-gathering, and prepare documents for a lawyer's review, with the licensed lawyer responsible for the work.
Q: Can the graduate counsel clients or appear in court before admission?
A: No. The opinion concludes a nonlawyer may not counsel clients on legal matters, engage directly in the practice of law, or appear in court or formal proceedings; those remain the licensed lawyer's province.
Q: Can the graduate be paid a share of the legal fees?
A: No. The opinion concludes that under Oregon RPC 5.4(a) the graduate, as a nonlawyer, may not receive a share or percentage of the lawyer's legal fees.
Q: How must the firm describe an unadmitted graduate?
A: Not as a lawyer. The opinion concludes the graduate may not hold out as admitted under RPC 5.5(b)(2) and RPC 7.1, so the firm must ensure signatures, letterhead, voicemail, and other communications are not false or misleading.
Background and rules framework
The opinion interprets Oregon RPC 5.5 (unauthorized practice), RPC 5.3 (supervision of nonlawyers), RPC 5.4(a) (sharing fees with nonlawyers), RPC 7.1 (false or misleading communications), and RPC 8.4 (misconduct), against the licensing statutes ORS 9.160, 9.210, and 9.220. These track Model Rules 5.3, 5.4, 5.5, and 7.1. It relies on State ex rel. Oregon State Bar v. Lenske and In re Harris.
Citations and references
Rules of Professional Conduct:
- Oregon RPC 5.5 / Model Rule 5.5 (unauthorized practice)
- Oregon RPC 5.3 / Model Rule 5.3 (supervision of nonlawyers)
- Oregon RPC 5.4(a) / Model Rule 5.4 (sharing fees with nonlawyers)
- Oregon RPC 7.1 / Model Rule 7.1 (false or misleading communications); RPC 8.4
Statutes:
- ORS 9.160 (unauthorized practice); ORS 9.210, 9.220 (admission requirements)
Cases:
- State ex rel. Oregon State Bar v. Lenske, 284 Or. 23, 584 P.2d 759 (1978), scope of supervised nonlawyer work
- In re Harris, 366 Or. 475, 466 P.3d 22 (2020), unadmitted lawyers may not hold out as admitted
See also
- ABA Formal Op. 506: Responsibilities Regarding Nonlawyer Assistants
- OSB Ethics Op. 2022-200: Remote Work and Unlawful Practice of Law
Source
- Landing page: https://www.osbar.org/ethics/toc.html
- Original PDF: https://www.osbar.org/_docs/ethics/2021-198.pdf
Get today's answer for your situation
You just read a 2021 opinion on this question. Ezel checks the current Oregon Rules of Professional Conduct and answers your specific situation, with citations.
Opens in Ezel Pro. Every answer cites the rules it relies on.