Can a lawyer dun delinquent clients under fictitious agency names, and can a lawyer use 'mediation' to jointly handle both spouses in a divorce?

Plain-English summary

The committee addressed two inquiries. First, on fee collection, the lawyer proposed sending notices to delinquent clients under the names "Legal Audit Services" and "Bureau of Legal Economics." The committee was of the opinion that the use of those names would violate RPC 7.1(a) and/or RPC 8.4(c). It added that, while it could render no opinion on legal issues, there was some question that the use of such fictitious names might violate Washington's debt collection laws.

Second, on a lawyer acting as a mediator, the committee was of the opinion that the question of the attorney-client relationship is governed by the substance of the relationship and not the form. Based on the facts presented, the committee concluded this was an attempt to use mediation as a cover for improper joint representation of the parties in a marriage dissolution proceeding.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1993, before the Washington State Bar Association's adoption of the 2006 revisions to the Rules of Professional Conduct. The opinion's reference to RPC 2.2 is to the former rule on a lawyer acting as an intermediary between clients, which was later eliminated. 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 Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance.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: Can a lawyer collect overdue fees under a business-sounding fictitious name?

A: The committee said using names like "Legal Audit Services" or "Bureau of Legal Economics" would violate RPC 7.1(a) and/or RPC 8.4(c), and might also raise debt-collection-law concerns.

Q: Can a lawyer 'mediate' a divorce to handle both spouses at once?

A: On the facts, the committee said this was an attempt to use mediation as a cover for improper joint representation in a dissolution, because the relationship is judged by substance, not form.

Background and rules framework

The opinion applied RPC 7.1(a) (false or misleading communications about a lawyer's services) and RPC 8.4(c) (conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation), corresponding to ABA Model Rules 7.1 and 8.4, to the fictitious collection names. The mediation question turned on the former RPC 2.2 intermediary rule and the principle that the attorney-client relationship is defined by substance rather than label.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• ABA Model Rule 7.1 (communications about a lawyer's services); Washington RPC 7.1(a)
• ABA Model Rule 8.4 (misconduct; dishonesty and misrepresentation); Washington RPC 8.4(c)
• Washington RPC 2.2 (former rule on a lawyer as intermediary between clients; later eliminated)

See also

• WA Ethics Op. 1540: Conflict Waiver Must Be Written
• WA Ethics Op. 1514: Falsified Judgment and Sentence Orders

Source

• Landing page: https://ao.wsba.org/print.aspx?ID=632

Original opinion text

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

Advisory Opinion: 1551
Year Issued: 1993
RPC(s): RPC 2.2; 7.1(a); 8.4(c)
Subject: Use of assumed name for fee collection; lawyer acting as mediator as cover for joint representation in dissolution

First, the Committee reviewed your inquiry concerning fee collections. [The lawyer proposed sending notices to delinquent clients under the names "Legal Audit Services" and "Bureau of Legal Economics."] The Committee was of the opinion that the use of "Legal Audit Services" or "Bureau of Legal Economics" would violate RPC 7.1(a) and/or RPC 8.4(c). Further, while the Committee could render no opinion regarding any legal issues, there was some question that the use of such fictitious names might violate laws regarding debt collection in Washington.

Second, as to your inquiry concerning a lawyer acting as a mediator, the Committee was of the opinion that the question of the attorney/client relationship is governed by the substance of the relationship and not the form. The Committee was of the opinion that based upon the facts presented, this was an attempt to use mediation as a cover for improper joint representation of parties in a marriage dissolution proceeding.