Does the reporting-immunity for lawyer-assistance committee members extend to volunteer participants, and to similar programs run by other Tennessee bar associations?

Plain-English summary

Formal Ethics Opinion 83-F-48, issued May 23, 1983, had relieved officially elected members of the Nashville Bar Association's Alcohol and Drug Abuse Committee (Lawyers Concerned for Lawyers) of their Canon 1 duty to report ethical violations discovered while helping chemically dependent attorneys. By the time of this opinion, the program had completed four years of operation, helped more than ten attorneys, and become a pilot for other organized bar groups.

The Nashville Bar Association asked the Board to expand the immunity to all program participants, not only officially elected committee members, describing a confrontation process in which a trained team of two or more lawyers would meet with an identified attorney, point out how the dependency might be affecting the attorney's professional activities and relationships, and discuss treatment alternatives. The opinion granted that request, extending immunity from the reporting obligation to all Alcohol and Drug Abuse Committee members and to all volunteer participants in the program, whether or not officially elected by the sponsoring bar association's board. The opinion further expanded the immunity beyond the Nashville Bar Association to cover the Alcohol and Drug Abuse Committees and participants of programs sponsored by the Tennessee Bar Association, the Memphis and Shelby County Bar Association, and the Knoxville Bar Association.

Currency note

Vacated. The Board of Professional Responsibility vacated Formal Ethics Opinion 87-F-48(a) on September 11, 2015, "due to changes in the law or rules." This opinion amended Formal Ethics Opinion 83-F-48, issued May 23, 1983, which was vacated the same day. The opinion was also issued in 1987, before Tennessee's adoption of the 2003 Rules of Professional Conduct, which replaced the former Code of Professional Responsibility. A vacated opinion has no continuing force and is not the Board's current guidance. It is reproduced and summarized here only as a historical research record. Do not rely on it as current; verify the current reporting and lawyer-assistance rules before acting.

Common questions

Q: Did this opinion widen who was covered by the reporting-immunity for lawyer-assistance program work?

A: As originally issued, yes. It extended the immunity from officially elected Nashville Bar Alcohol and Drug Abuse Committee members to all volunteer participants in the program.

Q: Did the immunity extend beyond the Nashville Bar Association?

A: Yes. The opinion extended the immunity to the Alcohol and Drug Abuse Committees and program participants of the Tennessee Bar Association, the Memphis and Shelby County Bar Association, and the Knoxville Bar Association.

Q: Is this opinion still in force?

A: No. The Board vacated Formal Ethics Opinion 87-F-48(a), along with the underlying Opinion 83-F-48, on September 11, 2015. Both are preserved here only as a historical research record.

Background and rules framework

The opinion applied the same framework as Formal Ethics Opinion 83-F-48: former DR 1-103 (the mandatory duty to report known ethical violations), interpreted in light of Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. The modern analog is Model Rule 8.3 / Tennessee RPC 8.3 (reporting professional misconduct).

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct (former Code):

• DR 1-103 (mandatory duty to report known ethical violations), interpreted in light of Canon 1. Modern analog: Model Rule 8.3 / Tennessee RPC 8.3

Other opinions cited:

• Tennessee Formal Ethics Opinion 83-F-48 (issued May 23, 1983, original reporting immunity for officially elected Nashville Bar committee members; expanded by this opinion)

See also

• Tenn. Ethics Op. 83-F-48: Lawyers Concerned for Lawyers Reporting Immunity (Vacated)
• Tenn. Ethics Op. 91-F-126: Confidentiality and Reporting in a Bar Colleagues Mentoring Program
• DC Ethics Op. 377: Duties When a Lawyer Is Impaired

Source

• Landing page: https://www.tbpr.org/ethic_opinions/87-F-48a

Original opinion text

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

87-F-48(a) - Vacated*

*Vacated by the Board of Professional Responsibility on September 11, 2015 due to changes in the law or rules.

FORMAL ETHICS OPINION 87-F-48(a)

Formal Ethics Opinion 83-F-48, relieving official members of the Nashville Bar Association Alcohol and Drug Abuse Committee of their obligation to report ethical violations discovered while helping attorneys with chemical dependency, is expanded to include all participants; and, to include participants of programs sponsored by the Tennessee Bar Association, the Memphis-Shelby County Bar Association and the Knoxville Bar Association.

Formal Ethics Opinion 83-F-48 issued by the Board on May 23, 1983 relieved official members of the Nashville Bar Association Alcohol and Drug Abuse Committee of their obligation to report ethical violations discovered while attempting to help attorneys with chemical dependency. The program has now completed its fourth year of operation and has been very successful. More than ten attorneys have sought and received help through the program. The Nashville program has become a pilot program for other organized Bar groups.

Formal Ethics Opinion 83-F-48 states, in part:

... only the members of the Alcohol and Drug Abuse Committee ... officially elected by the Board of the Nashville Bar Association are relieved from their Canon 1 obligation to report ethical violations which come to their attention from any source in connection with, and only during the time involved, and for the limited purpose of carrying out their stated obligation to attempt to help attorneys with alcohol or drug abuse problems.

The Nashville Bar Association, and other Bar groups, are interested in formulating committees with memberships consisting of lawyers knowledgeable about chemical dependency and its treatment, including recovering lawyers and other lawyers interested in the program goals. These members may become involved in the program in connection with the education process, in identifying lawyers who may be chemically dependent, in verifying a lawyer's chemical dependence, in confronting identified lawyers about their chemical dependency, in referral of lawyers for treatment, and in supporting the rehabilitation of lawyers who are chemically dependent.

During the confrontation process, a team composed of two or more lawyers appropriately trained for intervention confrontation to confront the lawyer with the facts as known and will encourage the impaired lawyer to obtain help. The confrontation team will point out how dependency may be affecting the lawyer's professional activities and relationships. Treatment alternatives will be discussed.

The Nashville Bar Association has requested that Formal Ethics Opinion 83-F-48 be expanded to provide immunity for all participants of the program from their obligation to report ethical violations discovered while engaged in the program. Formal Ethics Opinion 83-F-48, therefore, is expanded to include all Alcohol and Drug Abuse Committee members, and all participants of the program who may volunteer their services even though not officially elected by the Board of the respective approved bar organizations. They are immune from their obligation to report ethical violations discovered while engaged in the program.

This opinion further expands the previous ethics opinion to include the Alcohol and Drug Abuse Committees and participants of programs sponsored by the Tennessee Bar Association, the Memphis and Shelby County Bar Association and the Knoxville Bar Association.

This 10th day of June, 1987.

ETHICS COMMITTEE:

W. J. Flippin

Henry H. Hancock

Edwin C. Townsend

APPROVED AND ADOPTED BY THE BOARD