Is a lawyer's proposed 'scrivener service' helping pro se dissolution parties fill out pleadings the practice of law, and does it comply with the rules?

Plain-English summary

A lawyer proposed assisting parties to a dissolution in completing pleadings such as parenting plans, under a "scrivener agreement." The committee reviewed the proposed agreement.

The committee was of the opinion that the proposed "scrivener service" was the practice of law and that the proposed contract was fraught with violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct. The committee added that it had not been presented with the question of whether a lawyer can serve in a purely scrivener role, and so rendered no opinion on that specific question.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1991, before the 2006 revisions to the Washington Rules of Professional Conduct. 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 Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance.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, deadline, or requirement mentioned here.

Common questions

Q: Was the proposed "scrivener service" the practice of law?

A: The committee was of the opinion that it was the practice of law.

Q: Did the proposed contract comply with the rules?

A: No. The committee said the proposed contract was fraught with violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct.

Q: Did the committee decide whether a lawyer can ever act as a pure scrivener?

A: No. The committee said it was not presented with that issue and specifically rendered no opinion on it.

Background and rules framework

The opinion addressed the scope of representation under RPC 1.2, Washington's rule on the scope of representation, which corresponds to ABA Model Rule 1.2, in the context of a lawyer offering form-completion help to self-represented dissolution parties. The committee characterized the proposed service as the practice of law and found the proposed contract inconsistent with the rules, while leaving open the distinct question of a purely scrivener role.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• ABA Model Rule 1.2 (scope of representation)
• Washington RPC 1.2

See also

• ABA Formal Op. 07-446: Ghostwriting for Pro Se Litigants
• DC Ethics Op. 330: Unbundling Legal Services

Source

• Landing page: https://ao.wsba.org/print.aspx?ID=516

Original opinion text

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

Advisory Opinion: 1436
Year Issued: 1991
RPC(s): RPC 1.2
Subject: Scope of representation; practice of law; assisting pro se parties in completing form pleadings under guise of scrivener

[The lawyer proposed assisting parties to dissolution in completing pleadings such as parenting plans.] The Committee reviewed your proposed "scrivener agreement". The Committee is of the opinion that your proposed "scrivener service" is the practice of law, and that your proposed contract is fraught with violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct. The Committee noted that it was not presented with the issue of whether a lawyer can serve in a purely scrivener role so specifically rendered no opinion on that question.