Does a firm's paralegal volunteering at a legal-services clinic create conflicts of interest for the firm's lawyers?

Plain-English summary

The inquiry concerned a possible conflict of interest when a paralegal from a private firm volunteers at a legal-services clinic. The committee concluded there would not be a general conflict of interest between the lawyers who employed paralegals volunteering at the clinic and all clinic clients.

The committee did identify a narrower potential conflict: one could exist between a lawyer and a party with an interest adverse to the clinic client served by the paralegal that lawyer regularly employs. Even then, the committee concluded there would not be a conflict preventing that lawyer from providing legal services to clinic clients served by other staff, provided there are adequate screening mechanisms at the clinic to ensure the paralegal does not have access to information from or about other clinic clients. The committee said it might even be possible for a lawyer to provide legal services to the person the lawyer's paralegal had assisted at the clinic, provided the paralegal complies with RPC 7.2(c) and 7.3. Both the clinic and the lawyer should ensure compliance with RPC 1.6 and 5.3, and while RPC 1.10 does not apply to paralegals, it may be referred to by analogy in ensuring compliance with RPC 1.6 and 5.3.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1999, 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 Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance.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 supervision and imputation rules (RPC 5.3 and 1.10) and the advertising and solicitation rules (RPC 7.2 and 7.3) were revised in the 2006 revisions, so verify the current rules before relying on them.

Common questions

Q: Does a firm's paralegal volunteering at a clinic disqualify the firm's lawyers from clinic clients generally?

A: No. The committee concluded there is no general conflict between lawyers who employ volunteering paralegals and all clinic clients.

Q: When could a conflict arise?

A: Between a lawyer and a party adverse to the specific clinic client served by the paralegal that lawyer regularly employs; even then, the lawyer could serve other clinic clients with adequate clinic screening.

Q: Can the lawyer represent the very person the paralegal helped at the clinic?

A: The committee said it might even be possible, provided the lawyer's paralegal complies with RPC 7.2(c) and 7.3, and the clinic and lawyer ensure compliance with RPC 1.6 and 5.3.

Background and rules framework

The opinion applied Washington RPC 1.6 (confidentiality), RPC 5.3 (responsibilities regarding nonlawyer assistants), RPC 7.2(c) and 7.3 (advertising and solicitation), and used RPC 1.10 (imputation) by analogy, corresponding to ABA Model Rules 1.6, 5.3, 7.2, 7.3, and 1.10. The committee rejected a blanket conflict, located any conflict in the specific paralegal-served client relationship, and made continued service contingent on clinic screening and confidentiality compliance.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• ABA Model Rule 1.6 (confidentiality of information); Washington RPC 1.6
• ABA Model Rule 1.10 (imputation of conflicts of interest); Washington RPC 1.10 (applied by analogy)
• ABA Model Rule 5.3 (responsibilities regarding nonlawyer assistants); Washington RPC 5.3
• ABA Model Rule 7.2 (advertising); Washington RPC 7.2(c)
• ABA Model Rule 7.3 (solicitation of clients); Washington RPC 7.3

See also

• WA Ethics Op. 1857: Conflicts From a Clerkship
• WA Ethics Op. 1816: Paralegal-Run Branch Office
• WSBA Ethics Op. 1064: Former Agency Lawyer Screening

Source

• Landing page: https://ao.wsba.org/print.aspx?ID=1054

Original opinion text

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

Advisory Opinion: 1861
Year Issued: 1999
RPC(s): RCP 1.6; 1.10; 5.3; 7.2(c); 7.3
Subject: Conflict of interest; paralegal at firm volunteers at legal service clinic

I have been instructed by the Rules of Professional Conduct Committee to respond to your ethics inquiry #1861 concerning a possible conflict of interest when a paralegal from a private firm volunteers at a legal services clinic.

The Committee has reviewed your inquiry and determined the following:

There would not be a general conflict of interest between the lawyers who employed paralegals volunteering at the clinic and all clinic clients.

A conflict of interest could exist between a lawyer and a party with an adverse interest to the clinic client served by the paralegal regularly employed by that lawyer. There would not be a conflict of interest for that lawyer that would prevent him or her from providing legal services to clinic clients served by other staff provided that there are adequate screening mechanisms in place at the clinic to insure that the paralegal does not have access to information from or about other clients served by the clinic. It might even be possible for a lawyer to provide legal services to the person whom the lawyer’s paralegal had assisted at the clinic, provided that the lawyer’s paralegal complies with the requirements of RPC 7.2(c) and 7.3.

Both the clinic and the lawyer should insure compliance with RPC 1.6 and 5.3. While RPC 1.10 does not apply to paralegals, it may be referred to by way of analogy in insuring compliance with RPC 1.6 and RPC 5.3.