Differences from ABA Model Rules
|Rule 1.2(c) Limited Scope||Same as Model Rule|
|Rule 5.4(a) Fee-Sharing||Significant Changes|
|Rules 5.4(b)-(d) Non-Lawyer Ownership||Significant Changes|
|Rule 5.5. Unauthorized Practice of Law||Significant Changes|
|Rule 5.7 Law Related Services||Significant Changes|
|Rule 6.5 Limited Scope||Same as Model Rule|
|Rule 7.2(b) Lawyer Referral||Significant Changes|
|Cloud Computing Advisory||Yes|
|Technology Competency Rules||Yes|
ABA Rule 1.2(c) (Limited Scope)
Same as Model Rule.
(6) The scope of services to be provided by a lawyer may be limited by agreement with the client or by the terms under which the lawyer’s services are made available to the client. When a lawyer has been retained by an insurer to represent an insured, for example, the representation may be limited to matters related to the insurance coverage. A limited representation may be appropriate because the client has limited objectives for the representation. In addition, the terms upon which representation is undertaken may exclude specific means that might otherwise be used to accomplish the client’s objectives. Such limitations may exclude actions that the client thinks are too costly or that the lawyer regards as repugnant or imprudent.
(7) Although this Rule affords the lawyer and client substantial latitude to limit the representation, the limitation must be reasonable under the circumstances. If, for example, a client’s objective is limited to securing general information about the law the client needs in order to handle a common and typically uncomplicated legal problem, the lawyer and client may agree that the lawyer’s services will be limited to a brief telephone consultation. Such a limitation, however, would not be reasonable if the time allotted was not sufficient to yield advice upon which the client could rely. Although an agreement for a limited representation does not exempt a lawyer from the duty to provide competent representation, the limitation is a factor to be considered when determining the legal knowledge, skill, thoroughness and preparation reasonably necessary for the representation. See Rule 1.1.
(8) All agreements concerning a lawyer’s representation of a client must accord with the Rules of Professional Conduct and other law. See, e.g., Rules 1.1, 1.8 and 5.6.
Pa.-Phila. Joint Formal Ethics Op. 2011-100 (2011); (A lawyer may ethically limit the scope of representation of a client, but must adhere to the normal duty of competence and must be sure the client has exercised informed consent to the limitation. Lawyers are not under an obligation to disclose his or her role to either opposing parties or to a tribunal. Five safeguards for lawyers engaging in limited scope representation are outlined in the opinion.)
Pa. Ethics Op. 2004-24 (2004);
Phila. Ethics Op. 2010-4 (2010) (contract lawyer must verify that retaining firm disclosed limited scope of participation to client and obtained client’s informed consent)
Jones v. Bresset, 2000 W: 3311607 (47 Pa. D. & C 4th 60) (Defendant was an attorney hired by plaintiff in the midst of plaintiff’s bankruptcy proceedings. The plaintiff had already obtained counsel of record, and hired defendant solely for the purpose of securing an accounting in the bankruptcy proceeding. The defendant alerted plaintiff of limited scope of his representation, advising plaintiff that problems may arise outside the scope of his representation. Plaintiff commenced a legal malpractice suit against his attorney of record stating negligence, and included the defendant in the claim. The court found that since the defendant distinctly limited the scope of his representation and urged the plaintiff to hire separate counsel for other matters, the defendant had no legal duty to investigate or advise plaintiff on existence of malpractice by attorney of record.)
U.S. v. Eleven Vehicles, 966 F.Supp. 361 (E.D.Pa. 1997) (Court finds that ghostwriting by attorney for a pro se litigant implicates an attorney’s duty of candor to the court, interferes with the court’s ability to supervise the litigation, and misrepresents the litigant’s right to more liberal construction as a pro se litigant.)
ABA Rule 5.4(a) (Fee-sharing)
Rule 5.4. Professional Independence of a Lawyer.
a) A lawyer or law firm shall not share legal fees with a nonlawyer, except that:
1. an agreement by a lawyer with the lawyer’s firm, partner, or associate may provide for the payment of money, over a reasonable period of time after the lawyer’s death, to the lawyer’s estate or to one or more specified persons
2. a lawyer who undertakes to complete unfinished legal business of a deceased lawyer may pay to the estate of the deceased lawyer that portion of the total compensation which fairly represents the services rendered by the deceased lawyer;
3. a lawyer or law firm may include nonlawyer employees in a compensation or retirement plan, even though the plan is based in whole or in part on a profit-sharing arrangement;
4. a lawyer or law firm may purchase the practice of another lawyer or law firm from an estate or other eligible person or entity consistent with Rule 1.17; and
5. a lawyer may share court-awarded legal fees with a nonprofit organization that employed, retained or recommended employment of the lawyer in the matter.
(1) The provisions of this Rule express traditional limitations on sharing fees. These limitations are to protect the lawyer’s professional independence of judgment.
(3) Paragraph (a)(4) incorporates the authorization for the sale of a law practice pursuant to Rule 1.17. Fees may be shared between a lawyer purchasing a law practice and the estate or representative of the lawyer when a law practice is sold.
(4) Paragraph (a)(5) adds a new dimension to the current Rule by specifically permitting sharing of fees with a nonprofit organization. It is a practice approved in ABA Formal Opinion 93-374.
Pa. Ethics Op. 2007-02 (2007) (may not pay referral fee to lawyer who referred case while on inactive status)
Pa. Formal Ethics Op. 2007-400 (n.d.) (may pay referral fee to inactive, suspended, or disbarred lawyer if referral made before status change and client does not object)
Phila. Ethics Op. 04-3 (2004) (law firm may not pay its nonlawyer marketing director percentage of profits from cases he brings to firm)
Pa. Ethics Op. 00-08 (2000). (lawyer who undertakes unfinished legal work of deceased lawyer may pay estate portion of fees allocable to work already performed)
ABA Rule 5.4(b – d) Non-lawyer ownership
Rule 5.4. Professional Independence of a Lawyer.
D. A lawyer shall not practice with or in the form of a professional corporation or association authorized to practice law for profit, if:
1.a nonlawyer owns any interest therein, except that a fiduciary representative of the estate of a lawyer may hold the stock or interest of the lawyer for a reasonable time during administration;
2. a nonlawyer is a corporate director or officer thereof or occupies the position of similar responsibility in any form of association other than a corporation;
3. a nonlawyer has the right to direct or control the professional judgment of a lawyer; or
4. in the case of any form of association other than a professional corporation, the organic law governing the internal affairs of the association provides the equity owners of the association with greater liability protection than is available to the shareholders of a professional corporation
5. Subparagraphs (1), (2) and (4) shall not apply to a lawyer employed in the legal department of a corporation or other organization.
(5) These Rules do not restrict the organization of a private law firm to certain specified forms, such as a general partnership or a professional corporation. It is permissible to organize a private law firm using any form of association desired, including, without limitations such nontraditional forms as a limited partnership, registered limited liability partnership, limited liability company or business trust, so long as all of the restrictions in paragraph (d) are satisfied.
(6) Paragraph (d)(1) recognizes that the owners of a private law firm may choose to organize their firm in such a way that it has more than one level of ownership such as, for example, a partnership composed of or including professional corporations. An ownership structure with more than one level will be permissible as long as all of the beneficial owners (as opposed to record owners) are lawyers, subject to the exception for estate administration.
(7) Underlying the restriction in paragraph (d)(4) is a recognition that there are a variety of organizational forms that may be used by a law firm that provide some level of protection from personal liability for their owners. The use of such a form of organization is permissible so long as the limitation on liability provided by that form is no more extensive than that available through the professional corporation form. See 15 Pa.C.S. § 2925. Implicit in paragraph (d)(4) is a recognition that, so long as the owners have the personal liability preserved by the professional corporation law, a limitation on other personal liability is appropriate and should be respected. The result in First Bank & Trust Co. v. Zagoria, 250 Ga. 844, 302 S.E.2d 674 (1983), and similar cases is rejected.
(8) Although the last sentence of subsection (d) recognizes that the restrictions in paragraph (d)(1), (2) and (4) are not properly applicable to a lawyer employed in the legal department of a corporation or other organization, it is still important to preserve the professional independence of a lawyer in that situation and thus the restriction in paragraph (d)(3) will apply to such a lawyer.
Phila. Ethics Op. 2010-7 (2010) (Pennsylvania lawyer may enter fee-sharing agreement with D.C. firm owned in part by nonlawyer who will be sharing in profits pursuant to D.C. rule)
Pa. Ethics Op. 99-10 (1999) (Rule 5.4(c) requires director of law school’s legal clinic to protect interests of clinic client despite law school’s admonition that clinic director reconsider commencement of high-profile environmental litigation.)
Pa. Ethics Op. 98-90 (1998) (partnership between general-partner law firm and limited-partner real estate broker that provides real estate counseling and title insurance not allowed under Rule 5.4(d)(1); nonlawyer limited partner would be a beneficial owner)
ABA Rule 5.5 (UPL)
Rule 5.5. Unauthorized Practice of Law; Multijurisdictional Practice of Law.
B. A lawyer who is not admitted to practice in this jurisdiction shall not:
1. except as authorized by these Rules, Pa.B.A.R. 302 or other law, establish an office or other systematic and continuous presence in this jurisdiction for the practice of law; or
2. hold out to the public or otherwise represent that the lawyer is admitted to practice law in this jurisdiction.
C. A lawyer admitted in another United States jurisdiction or in a foreign jurisdiction, and not disbarred or suspended from practice in any jurisdiction, may provide legal services on a temporary basis in this jurisdiction that:
1. are undertaken in association with a lawyer who is admitted to practice in this jurisdiction and who actively participates in the matter;
2. are in or reasonably related to a pending or potential proceeding before a tribunal in this or another jurisdiction, if the lawyer, or a person the lawyer is assisting, is authorized by law or order to appear in such proceeding or reasonably expects to be so authorized;
3. are in or reasonably related to a pending or potential arbitration, mediation, or other alternative dispute resolution proceeding in this or another jurisdiction, if the services arise out of or are reasonably related to the lawyer’s practice in a jurisdiction in which the lawyer is admitted to practice and are not services for which the forum requires pro hac vice admission; or
4. are not within paragraphs (c)(2) or (c)(3) and arise out of or are reasonably related to the lawyer’s practice in a jurisdiction in which the lawyer is admitted to practice.
D. A lawyer admitted in another United States jurisdiction, and not disbarred or suspended from practice in any jurisdiction, may, subject to the requirements of Pa.B.A.R. 302, provide legal services in this jurisdiction that:
1. are provided to the lawyer’s employer or its organizational affiliates and are not services for which the forum requires pro hac vice admission, except that this paragraph (d) does not authorize a lawyer who is not admitted in this jurisdiction and who is employed by the Commonwealth, any of its political subdivisions or any of their organizational affiliates to provide legal services in this jurisdiction; or
2. are services that the lawyer is authorized to provide by federal law or other law of this jurisdiction.
(1) A lawyer may practice law only in a jurisdiction in which the lawyer is authorized to practice. A lawyer may be admitted to practice law in a jurisdiction on a regular basis or may be authorized by court rule or order or by law to practice for a limited purpose or on a restricted basis. Paragraph (a) applies to unauthorized practice of law by a lawyer, whether through the lawyer’s direct action or by the lawyer assisting another person. For example, a lawyer may not assist a person in practicing law in violation of the rules governing professional conduct in that person’s jurisdiction.
(2) The definition of the practice of law is established by law and varies from one jurisdiction to another. Whatever the definition, limiting the practice of law to members of the bar protects the public against rendition of legal services by unqualified persons. This Rule does not prohibit a lawyer from employing the services of paraprofessionals and delegating functions to them, so long as the lawyer supervises the delegated work and retains responsibility for their work. See Rule 5.3.
(3) A lawyer may provide professional advice and instruction to nonlawyers whose employment requires knowledge of the law; for example, claims adjusters, employees of financial or commercial institutions, social workers, accountants and persons employed in government agencies. Lawyers also may assist independent nonlawyers, such as paraprofessionals, who are authorized by the law of a jurisdiction to provide particular law-related services. In addition, a lawyer may counsel nonlawyers who wish to proceed pro se.
(4) Other than as authorized by law or this Rule, a lawyer who is not admitted to practice generally in this jurisdiction violates paragraph (b) if the lawyer establishes an office or other systematic and continuous presence in this jurisdiction for the practice of law. Presence may be systematic and continuous even if the lawyer is not physically present here. Such a lawyer must not hold out to the public or otherwise represent that the lawyer is admitted to practice law in this jurisdiction. See also Rules 7.1(a) and 7.5(b).
(5) There are occasions in which lawyers admitted to practice in another foreign or United States jurisdiction, and not disbarred or suspended from practice in any jurisdiction, may provide legal services on a temporary basis in this jurisdiction under circumstances that do not create an unreasonable risk to the interests of their clients, the public or the courts. Paragraph (c) identifies four such circumstances. The fact that conduct is not so identified does not imply that the conduct is or is not authorized. With the exception of paragraphs (d)(1) and (d)(2), this Rule does not authorize a lawyer to establish an office or other systematic and continuous presence in this jurisdiction without being admitted to practice generally here.
(6) There is no single test to determine whether a lawyer’s services are provided on a ‘‘temporary basis’’ in this jurisdiction, and may therefore be permissible under paragraph (c). Services may be ‘‘temporary’’ even though the lawyer provides services in this jurisdiction on a recurring basis, or for an extended period of time, as when the lawyer is representing a client in a single lengthy negotiation or litigation.
(7) Paragraphs (c) and (d) apply to lawyers who are admitted to practice law in any foreign or United States jurisdiction, which includes the District of Columbia and any state, territory or commonwealth of the United States. It is also intended to allow military lawyers to practice law on a pro bono basis for members of the military in civil matters. The word ‘‘admitted’’ in paragraph (c) contemplates that the lawyer is authorized to practice in the jurisdiction in which the lawyer is admitted and excludes a lawyer who while technically admitted is not authorized to practice, because, for example, the lawyer is on inactive status.
(8) Paragraph (c)(1) recognizes that the interests of clients and the public are protected if a lawyer admitted only in another jurisdiction associates with a lawyer licensed to practice in this jurisdiction. For this paragraph to apply, however, the lawyer admitted to practice in this jurisdiction must actively participate in and share responsibility for the representation of the client.
(9) Lawyers not admitted to practice generally in a jurisdiction may be authorized by law or order of a tribunal or an administrative agency to appear before the tribunal or agency. This authority may be granted pursuant to formal rules governing admission pro hac vice or pursuant to informal practice of the tribunal or agency. Under paragraph (c)(2), a lawyer does not violate this Rule when the lawyer appears before a tribunal or agency pursuant to such authority. To the extent that a court rule or other law of this jurisdiction requires a lawyer who is not admitted to practice in this jurisdiction to obtain admission pro hac vice before appearing before a tribunal or administrative agency, this Rule requires the lawyer to obtain that authority.
(10) Paragraph (c)(2) also provides that a lawyer rendering services in this jurisdiction on a temporary basis does not violate this Rule when the lawyer engages in conduct in anticipation of a proceeding or hearing in a jurisdiction in which the lawyer is authorized to practice law or in which the lawyer reasonably expects to be admitted pro hac vice. Examples of such conduct include meetings with the client, interviews of potential witnesses, and the review of documents. Similarly, a lawyer admitted only in another jurisdiction may engage in conduct temporarily in this jurisdiction in connection with pending litigation in another jurisdiction in which the lawyer is or reasonably expects to be authorized to appear, including taking depositions in this jurisdiction.
(11) When a lawyer has been or reasonably expects to be admitted to appear before a court or administrative agency, paragraph (c)(2) also permits conduct by lawyers who are associated with that lawyer in the matter, but who do not expect to appear before the court or administrative agency. For example, subordinate lawyers may conduct research, review documents, and attend meetings with witnesses in support of the lawyer responsible for the litigation.
(12) Paragraph (c)(3) permits a lawyer admitted to practice law in another jurisdiction to perform services on a temporary basis in this jurisdiction if those services are in or reasonably related to a pending or potential arbitration, mediation, or other alternative dispute resolution proceeding in this or another jurisdiction, if the services arise out of or are reasonably related to the lawyer’s practice in a jurisdiction in which the lawyer is admitted to practice. The lawyer, however, must obtain admission pro hac vice in the case of a court-annexed arbitration or mediation or otherwise if court rules or law so require.
(13) Paragraph (c)(4) permits a lawyer admitted in another jurisdiction to provide certain legal services on a temporary basis in this jurisdiction that arise out of or are reasonably related to the lawyer’s practice in a jurisdiction in which the lawyer is admitted but are not within paragraphs (c)(2) or (c)(3). These services include both legal services and services that non-lawyers may perform but that are considered the practice of law when performed by lawyers.
(14) Paragraphs (c)(3) and (c)(4) require that the services arise out of or be reasonably related to the lawyer’s practice in a jurisdiction in which the lawyer is admitted. A variety of factors evidence such a relationship. The lawyer’s client may have been previously represented by the lawyer, or may be resident in or have substantial contacts with the jurisdiction in which the lawyer is admitted. The matter, although involving other jurisdictions, may have a significant connection with that jurisdiction. In other cases, significant aspects of the lawyer’s work might be conducted in that jurisdiction or a significant aspect of the matter may involve the law of that jurisdiction. The necessary relationship might arise when the client’s activities or the legal issues involve multiple jurisdictions, such as when the officers of a multinational corporation survey potential business sites and seek the services of their lawyer in assessing the relative merits of each. In addition, the services may draw on the lawyer’s recognized expertise developed through the regular practice of law on behalf of clients in matters involving a particular body of federal, nationally-uniform, foreign, or international law.
(15) Paragraph (d) identifies two circumstances in which a lawyer who is admitted to practice in another jurisdiction, and is not disbarred or suspended from practice in any jurisdiction, may establish an office or other systematic and continuous presence in this jurisdiction for the practice of law as well as provide legal services on a temporary basis. Except as provided in paragraphs (d)(1) and (d)(2), a lawyer who is admitted to practice law in another jurisdiction and who establishes an office or other systematic or continuous presence in this jurisdiction must become admitted to practice law generally in this jurisdiction.
(16) Paragraph (d)(1) applies to a lawyer who is employed by a client to provide legal services to the client or its organizational affiliates, i.e., entities that control, are controlled by, or are under common control with the employer. This paragraph does not authorize the provision of personal legal services to the employer’s officers or employees. The paragraph applies to in-house corporate lawyers, government lawyers and others who are employed to render legal services to the employer. The lawyer’s ability to represent the employer outside the jurisdiction in which the lawyer is licensed generally serves the interests of the employer and does not create an unreasonable risk to the client and others because the employer is well situated to assess the lawyer’s qualifications and the quality of the lawyer’s work. A lawyer employed by the Commonwealth or one of its organizational affiliates, however, is not entitled to the exemption provided by paragraph (d) with respect to legal services provided in this jurisdiction. In the relatively rare instance that a lawyer employed by the Commonwealth or an organizational affiliate only provides legal services outside of the Commonwealth, paragraph (d) will be applicable and the lawyer will not be required to be admitted in this jurisdiction. But in most instances, lawyers employed by the Commonwealth or one of its organizational affiliates must be admitted in this jurisdiction.
(17) If an employed lawyer establishes an office or other systematic presence in this jurisdiction for the purpose of rendering legal services to the employer, the lawyer may be subject to registration or other requirements, including assessments for client protection funds and mandatory continuing legal education.
(18) Paragraph (d)(2) recognizes that a lawyer may provide legal services in a jurisdiction in which the lawyer is not licensed when authorized to do so by federal or other law, which includes statute, court rule, executive regulation or judicial precedent.
(19) A lawyer who practices law in this jurisdiction pursuant to paragraphs (c) or (d) or otherwise is subject to the disciplinary authority of this jurisdiction. See Rule 8.5(a).
(20) In some circumstances, a lawyer who practices law in this jurisdiction pursuant to paragraphs (c) or (d) may have to inform the client that the lawyer is not licensed to practice law in this jurisdiction. For example, that may be required when the representation occurs primarily in this jurisdiction and requires knowledge of the law of this jurisdiction. See Rule 1.4(b).
(21) Paragraphs (c) and (d) do not authorize communications advertising legal services in this jurisdiction by lawyers who are admitted to practice in other jurisdictions. Whether and how lawyers may communicate the availability of their services in this jurisdiction is governed by Rules 7.1 to 7.5
Phila. Ethics Op. 2003-13 (2003) (lawyer not admitted to practice in Pennsylvania but admitted elsewhere may represent longtime client in single ADR matter in Pennsylvania).
Phila. Ethics Op. 2005-14 (2005) (out-of-state lawyer may open office in Pennsylvania for limited purpose of practicing immigration law before federal courts)
Commonwealth v. Allstate Ins. Co., 729 A.2d 135 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1999) (insurer did not engage in unauthorized practice by attempting to have claimants settle claims quickly, telling them that insurer would offer fair amount and that they didn’t need a lawyer)
In re Henderson, 426 B.R. 526 (Bankr. W.D. Pa. 2010) (concluding that preparation, filing, and prosecution of motion constitutes practice of law)
In re Marcone, No. 09-2361, 2010 WL 3705992, 2010 BL 222277 (3d Cir. Sept. 23, 2010) (unpublished) (lawyer whose license suspended by Pennsylvania Supreme Court was not authorized, by virtue of license to practice before District Court of Eastern District of Pennsylvania, to provide legal services to clients who were not parties to action before that court and did not intend to prosecute action there)
Gmerek v. State Ethics Com’n, 751 A.2d 1241 (Pa.Cmwlth. 2000)
In attempting to determine the parameters of what constitutes the “practice of law”, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court stated long ago:
There is no need for present purposes to venture upon a comprehensive survey of the boundaries–necessarily somewhat obscure–which limit the practice of law. An attempt to formulate a precise definition would be more likely to invite criticism than to achieve clarity. We know, however, that when a lawyer has, through patient years of study, acquired an understanding of the law and obtained a license to engage in its practice, he applied his knowledge in three principal domains of professional activity:
1. He instructs and advises clients in regard to the law, so that they may properly pursue their affairs and be informed as to their rights and obligations.
2. He prepares for clients documents requiring familiarity with legal principles, beyond the ken of the ordinary layman,–for example, wills and such contracts as are not of a routine nature.
3. He appears for clients before public tribunals to whom is committed the function of determining rights of life, liberty and property according to the law of the land, in order that he may assist the deciding official in the proper interpretation and enforcement of the law…
Shortz v. Farrell, 327 Pa. 81, 84, 193 A. 20, 21 (1937). Thus, although the “practice of law” may be difficult to define, it most assuredly encompasses: advising clients regarding the law; preparing documents for clients which require a familiarity with legal principles beyond the ken of the ordinary layman such as wills and contracts; and appearing for clients before public tribunals charged with the power of determining liberty or property rights. Id.
However, it is important to stress that the “practice of law” is not limited to a lawyer’s appearance in court. As it has been previously noted:
[I]t is too obvious for discussion that the practice of law is not limited to the conduct of cases in courts. According to the generally understood definition of the practice of law in this country, it embraces the preparation of pleadings, and other papers incident to actions and special proceedings, and the management of such actions and proceedings on behalf of clients before judges and courts, and, in addition, conveyancing, the preparation of legal instruments of all kinds, and, in general, all advice to clients, and all action taken for them in matters connected with the law. An attorney at law is one who engages in any of these branches of the practice of law. The following is the concise definition given by the Supreme Court of the United States: “Persons acting professionally in legal formalities, negotiations, or proceedings by the warrant or authority of their clients may be regarded as attorneys at law within the meaning of that designation as employed in this country.” [Savings Bank v. Ward, 100 U.S. 195, 199, 10 Otto 195, 25 L.Ed. 621 (1879).]
In re Duncan, 83 S.C. 186, 187-190, 65 S.E. 210, 211 (1909).
ABA Rule 5.7 (Law Related Services)
Rule 5.7. Responsibilities Regarding Nonlegal Services.
(a) A lawyer who provides nonlegal services to a recipient that are not distinct from legal services provided to that recipient is subject to the Rules of Professional Conduct with respect to the provision of both legal and nonlegal services.
(b) A lawyer who provides nonlegal services to a recipient that are distinct from any legal services provided to the recipient is subject to the Rules of Professional Conduct with respect to the nonlegal services if the lawyer knows or reasonably should know that the recipient might believe that the recipient is receiving the protection of a client-lawyer relationship.
(c) A lawyer who is an owner, controlling party, employee, agent, or is otherwise affiliated with an entity providing nonlegal services to a recipient is subject to the Rules of Professional Conduct with respect to the nonlegal services if the lawyer knows or reasonably should know that the recipient might believe that the recipient is receiving the protection of a client-lawyer relationship.
(d) Paragraph (b) or (c) does not apply if the lawyer makes reasonable efforts to avoid any misunderstanding by the recipient receiving nonlegal services. Those efforts must include advising the recipient that the services are not legal services and that the protection of a client-lawyer relationship does not exist with respect to the provision of nonlegal services to the recipient.
(e) The term ‘‘nonlegal services’’ denotes services that might reasonably be performed in conjunction with and in substance are related to the provision of legal services, and that are not prohibited as unauthorized practice of law when provided by a nonlawyer.
(1) For many years, lawyers have provided to their clients nonlegal services that are ancillary to the practice of law. Examples of nonlegal services include providing title insurance, financial planning, accounting, trust services, real estate counseling, legislative lobbying, economic analysis, social work, psychological counseling, tax return preparation, and patent, medical or environmental consulting. A broad range of economic and other interests of clients may be served by lawyers participating in the delivery of these services.
The Potential for Misunderstanding
(2) Whenever a lawyer directly provides nonlegal services, there exists the potential for ethical problems. Principal among these is the possibility that the person for whom the nonlegal services are performed may fail to understand that the services may not carry with them the protection normally afforded by the client-lawyer relationship. The recipient of the nonlegal services may expect, for example, that the protection of client confidences, prohibitions against representation of persons with conflicting interests, and obligations of a lawyer to maintain professional independence apply to the provision of nonlegal services when that may not be the case. The risk of such confusion is especially acute when the lawyer renders both types of services with respect to the same matter.
Providing Nonlegal Services that Are Not Distinct from Legal Services
(3) Under some circumstances, the legal and nonlegal services may be so closely entwined that they cannot be distinguished from each other. In this situation, confusion by the recipient as to when the protection of the client-lawyer relationship applies is likely to be unavoidable. Therefore, Rule 5.7(a) requires that the lawyer providing the nonlegal services adhere to all of the requirements of the Rules of Professional Conduct.
(4) In such a case, a lawyer will be responsible for assuring that both the lawyer’s conduct and, to the extent required by Rule 5.3, that of nonlawyer employees, comply in all respects with the Rules of Professional Conduct. When a lawyer is obliged to accord the recipients of such nonlegal services the protection of those Rules that apply to the client-lawyer relationship, the lawyer must take special care to heed the proscriptions of the Rules addressing conflict of interest (Rules 1.7 through 1.11, especially Rules 1.7(b) and 1.8(a), (b) and (f)), and to scrupulously adhere to the requirements of Rule 1.6 relating to disclosure of confidential information. The promotion of the nonlegal services must also in all respects comply with Rule 5.8 relating to prohibitions and restrictions on dealing in investment products, and with Rules 7.1 through 7.3, dealing with advertising and solicitation.
(5) Rule 5.7(a) applies to the provision of nonlegal services by a lawyer even when the lawyer does not personally provide any legal services to the person for whom the nonlegal services are performed if the person is also receiving legal services from another lawyer that are not distinct from the nonlegal services.
Avoiding Misunderstanding when a Lawyer Directly Provides Nonlegal Services that Are Distinct from Legal Services
(6) Even when the lawyer believes that his or her provision of nonlegal services is distinct from any legal services provided to the recipient, there is still a risk that the recipient of the nonlegal services will misunderstand the implications of receiving nonlegal services from a lawyer; the recipient might believe that the recipient is receiving the protection of a client-lawyer relationship. Where there is such a risk of misunderstanding, Rule 5.7(b) requires that the lawyer providing the nonlegal services adhere to all the Rules of Professional Conduct, unless exempted by Rule 5.7(d).
Phila. Ethics Op. 2003-16 (2004) (if “legal and nonlegal services are truly indistinguishable, the Rules of Professional Conduct will apply to the provision of the nonlegal services, regardless of disclosures made by the attorney to the recipient of the services”)
Pa. Ethics Op. 2002-07 (2002) (law firm with ownership interest in insurance agency to which partners refer some clients not subject to lawyer ethics rules with respect to provision of insurance services if firm’s involvement in operation is almost nil and firm takes precautions to keep enterprises separate)
Phila. Ethics Op. 2002-7 (2002) (lawyers providing ancillary mortgage and real estate brokerage services to clients of law firm must comply with conflict-of-interest rules)
ABA Rule 6.5 (Court annexed/Non-profit limited scope)
Same as Model Rule.
(1) Legal services organizations, courts and various nonprofit organizations have established programs through which lawyers provide short-term limited legal services—such as advice or the completion of legal forms—that will assist persons to address their legal problems without further representation by a lawyer. In these programs, such as legal-advice hotlines, advice-only clinics or pro se counseling programs, a client-lawyer relationship is established, but there is no expectation that the lawyer’s representation of the client will continue beyond the limited consultation. Such programs are normally operated under circumstances in which it is not feasible for a lawyer to systematically screen for conflicts of interest as is generally required before undertaking a representation. See, e.g., Rules 1.7, 1.9 and 1.10.
(2) A lawyer who provides short-term limited legal services pursuant to this Rule must secure the client’s informed consent to the limited scope of the representation. See Rule 1.2(c). If a short-term limited representation would not be reasonable under the circumstances, the lawyer may offer advice to the client but must also advise the client of the need for further assistance of counsel. Except as provided in this Rule, the Rules of Professional Conduct, including Rules 1.6 and 1.9(c), are applicable to the limited representation.
(3) Because a lawyer who is representing a client in the circumstances addressed by this Rule ordinarily is not able to check systematically for conflicts of interest, paragraph (a) requires compliance with Rules 1.7 or 1.9(a) only if the lawyer knows that the representation presents a conflict of interest for the lawyer, and with Rule 1.10 only if the lawyer knows that another lawyer in the lawyer’s firm is disqualified by Rules 1.7 or 1.9(a) in the matter.
(4) Because the limited nature of the services significantly reduces the risk of conflicts of interest with other matters being handled by the lawyer’s firm, paragraph (b) provides that Rule 1.10 is inapplicable to a representation governed by this Rule except as provided by paragraph (a)(2). Paragraph (a)(2) requires the participating lawyer to comply with Rule 1.10 when the lawyer knows that the lawyer’s firm is disqualified by Rule 1.7 or 1.9(a). By virtue of paragraph (b), however, a lawyer’s participation in a short-term limited legal services program will not preclude the lawyer’s firm from undertaking or continuing the representation of a client with interests adverse to a client being represented under the program’s auspices. Nor will the personal disqualification of a lawyer participating in the program be imputed to other lawyers participating in the program.
(5) If, after commencing a short-term limited representation in accordance with this Rule, a lawyer undertakes to represent the client in the matter on an ongoing basis, Rules 1.7, 1.9(a) and 1.10 become applicable.
Pa. Ethics Op. 2006-04 (2006) (Rule 6.5 implicitly recognizes permissibility of legal services program that offers limited representation for clients in custody cases). Aba
Pa.-Phila. Joint Formal Ethics Op. 2011-100 (2011) (requiring lawyer to disclose participation “misses the whole point” of limited representation).
Philadelphia Ethics Op. 2012-7 (2013) (Rule 6.5 not triggered if lawyer’s company gives free limited representation on general matters to members who pay monthly fee; conflicts rules fully applicable) ABA
ABA Rule 7.2(b) (Lawyer referral)
Rule 7.2. Advertising.
(c) A lawyer shall not give anything of value to a person for recommending the lawyer’s services, except that a lawyer may pay:
(1) the reasonable cost of advertisements or written communications permitted by this Rule;
(2) the usual charges of a lawyer referral service or other legal service organization; and
(3) for a law practice in accordance with Rule 1.17.
(6) Subject to the limitations set forth under paragraphs (c) and (j), a lawyer is allowed to pay for advertising permitted by this Rule, but otherwise is not permitted to pay another person for recommending the lawyer’s services or for channeling professional work in a manner that violates Rule 7.3. A communication contains a recommendation if it endorses or vouches for a lawyer’s credentials, abilities, competence, character, or other professional qualities. Paragraph (c)(1), however, allows a lawyer to pay for advertising and communications permitted by this Rule, including the cost of print, directory listings, on-line directory listings, newspaper ads, television and radio air time, domain-name registrations, sponsorship fees, Internet-based advertisements, and group advertising. A lawyer may compensate employees, agents and vendors who are engaged to provide marketing or client-development services, such as publicists, public-relations personnel, business-development staff and website designers. Moreover, a lawyer may pay others for generating client leads, such as Internet-based client leads, as long as the lead generator does not recommend the lawyer, any payment to the lead generator is consistent with Rules 1.5(e) and 5.4, and the lead generator’s communications are consistent with Rule 7.1. To comply with Rule 7.1, a lawyer must not pay a lead generator that states, implies, or creates a reasonable impression that it is recommending the lawyer, is making the referral without payment form the lawyer, or has analyzed a person’s legal problems when determining which lawyer should receive the referral. See also Rule 5.3 for the duties of lawyers and law firms with respect to the conduct of non-lawyers and Rule 8.4(a). This restriction does not prevent an organization or person other than the lawyer from advertising or recommending the lawyer’s services. Thus, a legal aid agency or prepaid legal services plan may pay to advertise legal services provided under its auspices. Likewise, a lawyer may participate in lawyer referral programs and pay the usual fees charged by such programs. Paragraph (c) does not prohibit paying regular compensation to an assistant, such as a secretary, to prepare communications permitted by this Rule.
Pa. Ethics Op. 05-81 (2005) (lawyer may not give nonlawyer employee a paid day off for referring new client to firm)
Pa. Ethics Op. 93-107 (1993) (lawyer may not reduce fees ordinarily charged to client after client refers other cases to lawyer)
Phila. Ethics Op. 95-10 (1995) (lawyer may not give prepaid telephone cards to clients or members of public as incentive for recommending lawyers’ services)
Phila. Ethics Op. 93-26 (1994) (law firm that represents union workers may take union representatives to dinner or give gifts valued less than $100; nominal value of gifts supports firm’s position that gifts not being given for referrals)
Pa. Ethics Op. 96-112 (1996) (lawyer may not participate in online real estate lead and referral program in which lawyer would pay fee in exchange for exclusive marketing rights within certain area of state, advertising, and leads from sponsoring broker)
Pa. Ethics Op. 2008-37 (2008) (lawyer may not pay referral fee to owner of financial services company for referring company customers to lawyer)
Phila. Ethics Op. 93-15 (1993) (lawyer may pay referring out-of-state law firm per-case fee of $35 if reimbursement for actual costs incurred by referring firm, but not if referral fee)
Reasonable care standard
- Exercise reasonable care to ensure materials stored in the cloud remain confidential.
- Employ reasonable safeguards to protect data from breach, data loss, and other risk.
- See full opinion for 15 point list of possible safeguards.
Maintaining Competence (6) To maintain the requisite knowledge and skill, a lawyer should keep abreast of changes in the law and its practice, including the benefits and risks associated with relevant technology, engage in continuing study and education and comply with all continuing legal education requirements to which the lawyer is subject.