🧪 TEST MODE ACTIVE Use test card: 4242 4242 4242 4242
WSBA 1985

If a lawyer's client is a financial planner, can the lawyer also give legal advice to the planner's customers about products the planner sells, such as living trusts?

Short answer: On the limited facts given, the committee could not issue a full opinion and asked for more information; it stated that if the lawyer's client is the financial planner, the lawyer could not give legal advice to the planner's customers and would have to disclose to them that the lawyer was not acting as their lawyer.

Apply this to your situation

This page answers the general question as of 1985. Ezel answers yours: whether it's allowed on your facts, under the current rules of professional conduct in your state, with citations.

Currency note: this opinion is from 1985
Subsequent statutory amendments, court decisions, or later opinions or rule amendments may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current legal advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or remedy mentioned here.
Disclaimer: Advisory only. Not binding precedent.
About this page: The plain-English summary, reader guidance, and Q&A below were written by Ezel based on the official ethics opinion. The original opinion (linked on this page) is the authoritative source for any reliance.

Plain-English summary

A lawyer proposed a relationship with a financial advisor and the advisor's clients, who would be purchasing a living trust from the advisor. The committee reviewed the inquiry and determined that, on the facts before it, it could not render an opinion, and it asked the lawyer to submit additional information.

The committee said it was not clear from the inquiry who the lawyer's client would be. It gave one conditional view: if the lawyer's client is the financial advisor, the lawyer could not give advice to the advisor's clients, and the lawyer would have to make full disclosure to those clients that the lawyer would not be acting as their lawyer.

To consider the question further, the committee asked for more facts: what services the lawyer would provide, how the lawyer would be paid, how many lawyers would be involved, and what form of fee agreement the lawyer proposed to use.

Currency note

This opinion was issued under Washington's former Code of Professional Responsibility, which the Rules of Professional Conduct later replaced. It was issued in 1985, 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: Did the committee approve the arrangement with the financial planner?

A: No. It determined that, based on the facts before it, it could not render an opinion, and it requested additional information before considering the question further.

Q: If the lawyer's client is the financial advisor, can the lawyer advise the advisor's customers?

A: No. The committee stated that in that situation the lawyer could not give advice to the advisor's clients and would have to make full disclosure to them that the lawyer was not acting as their lawyer.

Q: What additional information did the committee want?

A: It asked who the lawyer's client would be, what services the lawyer would provide, how the lawyer would be paid, how many lawyers would be involved, and what form of fee agreement the lawyer proposed to use.

Background and rules framework

The opinion turns on identifying who the lawyer's client is, then applying the lawyer's duties when dealing with people who are not the lawyer's clients. The committee did not cite a rule by number. The conflict-of-interest and disclosure concerns it raised are addressed today by Washington RPC 1.7 (concurrent conflicts) and RPC 4.3 (dealing with unrepresented persons), and by their Model Rule counterparts.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

  • The opinion cites no rule by number. It applies conflict-of-interest principles and the duty to disclose non-representation to non-clients under the Washington Code of Professional Responsibility then in effect (concerns now addressed by RPC 1.7 and RPC 4.3 / Model Rules 1.7 and 4.3).

See also

Source

Original opinion text

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

Advisory Opinion: 836
Year Issued: 1985
RPC(s):
Subject: Conflict of interest; lawyer giving legal advice to clients of financial planner who is lawyer's client

The Code of Professional Responsibility Committee reviewed your inquiry regarding your proposed relationship with a financial advisor and his clients. [The clients would be purchasing a living trust from the financial advisor]. The Committee determined that, based upon the facts before them, it could not render an opinion. It has requested that you submit additional evidence for further consideration by the Committee.

It was not clear from your inquiry who your client would be. If your client is the financial advisor, then the Committee was of the opinion that you could not give advice to his clients, and that you must make full disclosure to his clients that you would not be acting as their lawyer. The Committee also wanted further information regarding the services you would be providing, how you would be paid, how many lawyers would be involved, and what form of fee agreement you proposed using.

[Editor's Note: The Code of Professional Responsibility was superseded by the Rules of Professional Conduct after this opinion was issued.]

Get today's answer for your situation

You just read a 1985 opinion on this question. Ezel checks the current rules of professional conduct in your state and answers your specific situation, with citations.

Opens in Ezel Pro. Every answer cites the rules it relies on.