Does a county bar's volunteer lawyer program face the conduct rules when it screens and refers indigent clients to volunteer attorneys?

Plain-English summary

The inquiry concerned the ethics of administering a volunteer lawyer program, an arm of a county bar association, that gives indigent members of the public general information about dissolutions or, in more complex cases, refers them to volunteer lawyers. The legal advice comes from the lawyers, not the staff; the staff screen applicants and make referrals. Referrals run either to a clinic attorney for up to one hour of advice (for a small referral charge) or to an independent pro bono attorney for ongoing services.

The committee said that as long as the program simply provides administrative services and all legal advice is rendered by independent lawyers who are responsible for checking conflicts of interest, there is no violation of the RPCs. If staff members render individual legal advice, the program would be subject to the RPCs like any other group that practices law. As to the information forms and the dissolution seminars, the committee said that, assuming appropriate disclosures are made so participants understand the seminar presenter is not their attorney and that nothing said is subject to attorney-client privilege, giving the seminars is not necessarily the practice of law and would not be subject to the RPCs.

On the program employee who is an attorney, the committee said it would be a conflict of interest for that person to act as guardian ad litem in a case where one of the parties had gone through the program. It cautioned that if that attorney also acted as a lawyer in other parts of the program (conducting the clinic or acting as pro bono counsel), that could change the program from a referral service into an actual provider of legal services, in which case the RPCs, particularly RPC 1.7(a) and (b), would come into play.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1997, 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 Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance.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. Washington's RPC 1.7 corresponds to ABA Model Rule 1.7 (conflicts of interest).

Common questions

Q: Does a bar's screen-and-refer program violate the RPCs?

A: The committee said no, as long as the program only provides administrative services and all legal advice comes from independent lawyers who check their own conflicts.

Q: What if program staff start giving legal advice?

A: The committee said the program would then be subject to the RPCs like any other group that practices law.

Q: Are the dissolution seminars the practice of law?

A: The committee said that, with appropriate disclosures that the presenter is not the attendee's attorney and that nothing said is privileged, the seminars are not necessarily the practice of law.

Q: Can a program-employee attorney serve as guardian ad litem for a participant?

A: The committee said that would be a conflict of interest, and warned that an attorney also serving as program counsel could turn the referral service into a legal-services provider, triggering RPC 1.7(a) and (b).

Background and rules framework

The opinion applied RPC 1.7(a) and (b) (conflicts of interest, corresponding to ABA Model Rule 1.7) and the line between administering a referral service and practicing law. The committee kept a pure screen-and-refer operation outside the RPCs, and treated staff legal advice, dual-role attorney participation, or a program-employee serving as guardian ad litem for a participant as the points where the rules attach.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• ABA Model Rule 1.7 (conflicts of interest); Washington RPC 1.7(a), 1.7(b)

See also

• WA Ethics Op. 1704: Representing an Association & Member
• WA Ethics Op. 1646: Union Referral of Members to Lawyers
• WA Ethics Op. 1692: Advancing Litigation Expenses in Pro Bono Work

Source

• Landing page: https://ao.wsba.org/print.aspx?ID=782

Original opinion text

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

Advisory Opinion: 1708
Year Issued: 1997
RPC(s): RPC 1.7(a); 1.7(b)
Subject: Conflicts of interest; volunteer lawyer program

I have been instructed by the Rules of Professional Conduct Committee to respond to your inquiry regarding the ethical implications involved in administering a volunteer lawyer program ("Program"), an arm of a county bar association. This Program is designed to provide indigent members of the public general information required in dissolutions or, in more complex cases, referring those individuals to qualified, competent lawyers who have agreed to volunteer their time. The legal advice comes from the lawyers and not from the staff. The staff's job is to screen the applicants to insure that they meet the basic qualifications for the Program and to make the referrals to the appropriate part of the Program.

The referral nature of the Program has two parts. If the individual has only a few questions, he or she is referred to an attorney who is participating in [a specific clinic.] This means the individual will be given up to one hour of legal advice from an independent attorney who is participating in the clinic. There is a small charge made for that referral. If it appears that the person has a more difficult problem which needs ongoing legal services, that person is then referred to a pro bono attorney, again, who is independent of the Program. It is the independent lawyer who provides the legal advice. The Clinic is the device which screens and refers the individuals determining whether or not the people meet the financial thresholds for pro bono services.

In answer to the first part of your inquiry regarding the ethical implications involved in administering the Program, it is the Committee’s opinion that as long as the Program is simply providing administrative services and that all legal advice is being rendered by independent lawyers who are responsible for checking for conflicts of interest, there is no violation of any of the RPCs. However, if staff members of the Program are engaged in rendering individual legal advice, then the Program would be subject to the RPCs as any other group that practices law would be.

With regard to your information forms and conducting the Dissolution Seminars, assuming that appropriate disclosures are made so that those people understand that the person conducting the Seminar is not their attorney and that anything stated in that Seminar is not subject to attorney/client privilege, it is the Committee’s opinion that the giving of seminars is not necessarily the practice of law, and would not be subject to the RPCs.

In answer to the question regarding an employee of the Program who may be an attorney, the Committee believes that it would constitute a conflict of interest for that person to act as Guardian ad Litem in a case where one of the parties had gone through the Program. The Committee also cautions that if that attorney were to be acting in the capacity of the attorney during other parts of the Program, i.e., conducting Clinic or acting as pro bono counsel, that could change the character of the program from that of being a referral service to an actual provider of legal services, in which case the RPCs, particularly RPC 1.7(a) and (b), would come into play