Can a lawyer take assignments through a for-profit temporary employment agency that markets the lawyer's availability and is paid by the employer?

Plain-English summary

A lawyer asked whether an attorney may work for a temporary employment agency under an arrangement with these features: the agency is a for-profit entity; the lawyer is paid by the agency on an hourly or per-project basis; the agency may contact potential employers in its database to inform them of the lawyer's availability; the agency is paid by its client, the employer; and the lawyer maintains professional independence, is not restricted in the right to practice, and makes all communications, including advertising, in compliance with the Rules of Professional Conduct.

In response, the committee referred the inquirer to ABA Committee on Ethics and Professional Responsibility, Formal Opinion 356 (1988). The committee adopted only the part of that ABA opinion which addresses the specific questions presented, with the caveat that Washington's conflict-of-interest rules differ somewhat from the ABA Model Rules on conflicts.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1994, before the Washington State Bar Association's adoption of the 2006 revisions to the 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 Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance.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: Can a lawyer take work through a for-profit temporary agency?

A: The committee answered by adopting the part of ABA Formal Opinion 356 (1988) that addresses the described arrangement, rather than issuing a separate Washington analysis of each feature.

Q: Did the committee adopt the ABA opinion in full?

A: No. The committee adopted only the part of ABA Formal Opinion 356 that addresses the specific questions presented.

Q: Did the committee flag any difference from the ABA approach?

A: Yes. It cautioned that Washington's conflict-of-interest rules differ somewhat from the ABA Model Rules on conflicts.

Background and rules framework

The committee resolved the inquiry by reference to ABA Formal Opinion 356 (1988), which addresses lawyers placed through temporary-staffing agencies, rather than by citing specific Washington RPC numbers in the text indexed here. It adopted that opinion only in part and limited the adoption with a caveat that Washington's conflict-of-interest rules are not identical to the ABA Model Rules.

Citations and references

Other opinions cited:

• ABA Committee on Ethics and Professional Responsibility, Formal Opinion 356 (1988): lawyers working through temporary-employment agencies

See also

• WA Ethics Op. 1560: Washington Lawyer Employed by an Out-of-State Corporation
• WA Ethics Op. 1071: Paid Personal Referral Service Prohibited

Source

• Landing page: https://ao.wsba.org/print.aspx?ID=658

Original opinion text

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

Advisory Opinion: 1577
Year Issued: 1994
RPC(s): ABA Formal Opinion 356
Subject: Lawyer employed by temporary agency

The Committee reviewed your inquiry regarding whether an attorney may work for a temporary employment agency where: (1) the temporary agency is a for profit entity; (2) the lawyer is paid on an hourly, or by the project, basis by the temporary agency; (3) the temporary agency may contact potential employers in its database to inform them of the availability of the lawyer's services; (4) the temporary agency is paid by its client, which is the employer; and (5) the attorney maintains professional independence, is not restricted in their right to practice, and all communications including advertising are made in compliance with the Rules of Professional Conduct.

In response to your inquiry, the Committee refers you to ABA Committee on Ethics and Professional Responsibility, Formal Opinion 356 (1988). The Committee adopted only part of this ABA Formal Opinion which addresses your specific questions above, with the caveat that Washington's conflict of interest rules somewhat differ from the ABA Model Rules on conflict of interest.