Change Log Entries
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||Same as Model Rule|
|Rule 6.5 Limited Scope||Same as Model Rule|
|Rule 7.2(b) Lawyer Referral||Significant Changes|
|Cloud Computing Advisory||No|
|Technology Competency Rules||Yes (as of 12/27/19)|
ABA Rule 1.2(c) (Limited Scope)
Same as Model Rule.
 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.
 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.
 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.
S.C. Ethics Op. 10-01 (2010);
South Carolina Ethics Op. 09-09 (2009) (lawyer pursuing his own tort claims against client’s ex-husband for stalking and property damage may continue to represent client in trying to collect family court judgment from ex-husband’s potential inheritance if he does not seek to collect from assets as to which he may have his own claim).
South Carolina Bar Ethics Advisory Op. 05-18 (An attorney may limit representation in a real estate closing to certain portions or phases of the transaction without violating the South Carolina Rules of Professional Conduct, if the limitation is reasonable under the circumstances and the clients give informed consent. However, the arrangement presents elevated risks of ethical violations, and attorneys are advised to take additional precautions to avoid violating, in particular, Rules 5.5(a), 1.1, and 1.2(c), or in the alternative should avoid undertaking the representation.)
South Carolina Bar Ethics Advisory Op. 90-18 (A lawyer may draft and submit a responsive pleading and waiver of appearance on behalf of an opposing party in a divorce action while representing the interest of his or her own client when he or she determines that the preparation and submission of the pleadings does not constitute representation.)
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 proportion of the total compensation which fairly represents the services rendered by the deceased lawyer;
(3) a lawyer who purchases the practice of a deceased, disabled, or disappeared lawyer may, pursuant to the provision of Rule 1.17, pay to the estate or other representative of that lawyer the agreed-upon purchase price;
(4) a lawyer or a 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.
 The provisions of this Rule express traditional limitations on sharing fees. These limitations are to protect the lawyer’s professional independence of judgment. Where someone other than the client pays the lawyer’s fee or salary, or recommends employment of the lawyer, that arrangement does not modify the lawyer’s obligation to the client. As stated in paragraph (c), such arrangements should not interfere with the lawyer’s professional judgment.
In re Deddish, 557 S.E.2d 655 (S.C. 2001) (lawyer did estate-planning work for, and split fees with, nonlawyer-owned limited-liability company)
Doe v. Condon, 532 S.E.2d 879 (S.C. 2000) (may not compensate paralegal using profit-sharing arrangement based upon volume and type of cases paralegal handles)
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 a profit, if:
(1) a nonlawyer owns any interest therein, except that a fiduciary representative of the estate or trust of a lawyer may hold the stock or interest of the lawyer for a reasonable time during settlement or administration;
(2) a nonlawyer is a corporate director or officer thereof or occupies a position of similar responsibility in any form of association other than a corporation; or
(3) a nonlawyer has the right to direct or control the professional judgment of a lawyer.
 This Rule also expresses traditional limitations on permitting a third party to direct or regulate the lawyer’s professional judgment in rendering legal services to another. See also Rule 1.8(f)(lawyer may accept compensation from a third party as long as there is no interference with the lawyer’s independent professional judgment and the client gives informed consent).
S.C. Ethics Op. 04-03 (2004) (arrangement under which nonprofit organization pays lawyer to draft estate-related documents for its prospective donors is permissible if fee not percentage of gift amount and lawyer protects independence of judgment)
S.C. Ethics Op. 06-12 (2006) (permissible for salaried staff lawyer of private or governmental entity to be supervised by nonlawyer if he does not allow nonlawyer to direct or regulate his professional judgment)
ABA Rule 5.5 (UPL)
RULE 5.5: UNAUTHORIZED PRACTICE OF LAW; MULTIJURISDICTIONAL PRACTICE OF LAW
(c) A lawyer admitted in another United States jurisdiction, and not debarred, 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 representation of an existing client 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 paragraph (c)(2) or (c)(3) and arise out of or are reasonably related to the lawyer’s representation of an existing client in a jurisdiction in which the lawyer is admitted to practice.
(d) A lawyer admitted in another United States jurisdiction, and not debarred, disbarred or suspended from practice in any jurisdiction, may 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; or
(2) are services that the lawyer is authorized to provide by federal law or other law of this jurisdiction.
 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.
 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.
 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.
 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).
 There are occasions in which a lawyer admitted to practice in another United States jurisdiction, and not debarred, 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), the 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.
 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.
 Paragraphs (c) and (d) apply to lawyers who are admitted to practice law in any United States jurisdiction, which includes the District of Columbia and any state, territory or commonwealth of the United States. 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.
 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.
 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.
 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.
 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.
 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 pre-existing representation of a client 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. For the purposes of this rule, a lawyer who is not admitted to practice in South Carolina who seeks to provide legal services pursuant to Rule 5.5(c)(3) in more than three matters in a 365-day period shall be presumed to be providing legal services on a regular, not temporary, basis. A lawyer providing legal services pursuant to paragraph (c)(3) must comply with the requirements of Rule 404, SCACR.
 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 pre-existing representation of a client 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 nonlawyers may perform but that are considered the practice of law when performed by lawyers.
 Paragraph (c)(3) requires that the services arise out of or be reasonably related to the lawyer’s pre-existing representation of a client 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 for the client 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 issue 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. Lawyers not otherwise authorized to practice law in this jurisdiction desiring to provide pro bono legal services on a temporary basis in this jurisdiction following a major disaster should consult Rule 426, SCACR (Provision of Legal Services Following Determination of Major Disaster).
 Paragraph (d) identifies two circumstances in which a lawyer who is admitted to practice in another United States jurisdiction, and is not debarred, 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.
 Paragraphs (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.
 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.
 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.
 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).
 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).
 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.
Boone v. Quicken Loans, Inc., ___ S.E.2d ___, No. 27727, 2017 WL 3046025, 2017 BL 249089 (S.C. July 19, 2017) (online mortgage lender and title insurer who prepared loan refinancing documents did not engage in unauthorized practice of law because closing lawyers “reviewed documents for accuracy and compliance with the law prior to closing”)
Crawford v. Central Mortg. Co., 744 S.E.2d 538 (S.C. 2013) (lender did not engage in unauthorized practice of law when it prepared, mailed, and recorded modifications to existing loans without involvement of licensed lawyer)
Doe v. Condon, 532 S.E.2d 879 (S.C. 2000) (declaratory judgment action; law firm paralegal may not conduct informal seminars on wills and trusts in lawyer’s absence)
Doe Law Firm v. Richardson, 636 S.E.2d 866 (S.C. 2006) (disbursing funds after real estate closing may not “in and of itself entail specialized legal knowledge and ability,” but is tied to other activities on behalf of clients that require such knowledge and ability and so is practice of law)
Hambrick v. GMAC Mortgage Corp., 634 S.E.2d 5 (S.C. Ct. App. 2006) (purpose of prohibition on unauthorized practice is “to protect the public from incompetent, unethical, or irresponsible representation”)
In re Chastain, 587 S.E.2d 115 (S.C. 2003) (disbarring suspended lawyer who engaged in unauthorized practice by working as office manager for county lawyer)
In re DuBre, 656 S.E.2d 343 (S.C. 2007) (managing lawyer of out-of-state collection firm’s South Carolina office signed firm’s pleadings so they could be filed in state and took no other action in those cases, which were handled by out-of-state lawyers)
In re Jardine, 764 S.E.2d 924 (S.C. 2014) (out-of-state lawyer solicited clients for loan modifications in South Carolina without being admitted there)
In re Lexington County Transfer Court, 512 S.E.2d 791 (S.C. 1999) (plea negotiations and representation of state in transfer court guilty plea proceedings constitute practice of law and may be undertaken only by solicitor or assistant solicitor)
In re McKeever, No. 27739, __ S.E.2d __, 2017 WL 4159768, 2017 BL 331519 (S.C. September 20, 2017) (out-of-state lawyer repeatedly represented clients in court without seeking licensure; lawyer was ineligible for pro hac vice admission because she lived in South Carolina, regularly practiced law there, and was regularly engaged in substantial business activities there)
In re Pincelli, 648 S.E.2d 578 (S.C. 2007) (lawyer allowed nonlawyer assistant to handle mortgage foreclosure aspect of practice with almost no supervision)
In re Richland County Magistrate’s Court, 699 S.E.2d 161 (S.C. 2010) (statute that allows nonlawyer representation in certain cases “merely comports with our case law”)
In re Unauthorized Practice of Law Rules Proposed by South Carolina Bar, 422 S.E.2d 123 (S.C. 1992) (considering “the rigorous professional training, certification and licensing procedures, continuing education requirements, and ethical code required of Certified Public Accounts,” court finds that CPAs are “entitled to recognition of their unique status” and holds that CPAs do not engage in unauthorized practice of law by rendering professional services, including representation before agencies and probate court, that are within their areas of expertise and qualifications)
Linder v. Ins. Claims Consultants, 560 S.E.2d 612 (S.C. 2002) (“no problem with a public adjuster measuring and documenting insurance claims,” but advising “clients of their rights, duties, or privileges under an insurance policy” unauthorized practice of law)
Matrix Financial Services Corp. v. Frazer, 714 S.E.2d 532 (S.C. 2011) (title search, document preparation, and real estate transaction closing all constitute practice of law and must be performed under supervision of licensed attorney)
Renaissance Enters. Inc. v. Summit Teleservices Inc., 515 S.E.2d 257 (S.C. 1999) (goal is to protect public from incompetent, unethical, or irresponsible representation).
Rogers Townsend & Thomas, PC v. Peck, 797 S.E.2d 396 (S.C. 2017) (business represented housing and condominium associations in magistrate’s court).
State v. Buyers Serv. Co., 357 S.E.2d 15 (S.C. 1987) (fact that title company retained lawyers to review closing documents did not save its activities from constituting unauthorized practice)
In re Duncan, 65 S.E. 210 (1909)
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.
ABA Rule 5.7 (Law Related Services)
Same as Model Rule.
 When a lawyer performs law-related services or controls an organization that does so, there exists the potential for ethical problems. Principal among these is the possibility that the person for whom the law-related services are performed fails to understand that the services may not carry with them the protections normally afforded as part of the client-lawyer relationship. The recipient of the law-related 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 law related services when that may not be the case.
 Rule 5.7 applies to the provision of law related services by a lawyer even when the lawyer does not provide any legal services to the person for whom the law related services are performed and whether the law related services are performed through a law firm or a separate entity. The Rule identifies the circumstances in which all of the Rules of Professional Conduct apply to the provision of law related services. Even when those circumstances do not exist, however, the conduct of a lawyer involved in the provision of law related services is subject to those Rules that apply generally to lawyer conduct, regardless of whether the conduct involves the provision of legal services. See, e. g., Rule 8.4.
 When law related services are provided by a lawyer under circumstances that are not distinct from the lawyer’s provision of legal services to clients, the lawyer in providing the law related services must adhere to the requirements of the Rules of Professional Conduct as provided in paragraph (a)(1). Even when the law related and legal services are provided in circumstances that are distinct from each other, for example through separate entities or different support staff within the law firm, the Rules of Professional Conduct apply to the lawyer as provided in paragraph (a)(2) unless the lawyer takes reasonable measures to assure that the recipient of the law related services knows that the services are not legal services and that the protections of the client lawyer relationship do not apply.
 Law-related services also may be provided through an entity that is distinct from that through which the lawyer provides legal services. If the lawyer individually or with others has control of such an entity’s operations, the Rule requires the lawyer to take reasonable measures to assure that each person using the services of the entity knows that the services provided by the entity are not legal services and that the Rules of Professional Conduct that relate to the client lawyer relationship do not apply. A lawyer’s control of an entity extends to the ability to direct its operation. Whether a lawyer has such control will depend upon the circumstances of the particular case.
 When a client-lawyer relationship exists with a person who is referred by a lawyer to a separate law-related service entity controlled by the lawyer, individually or with others, the lawyer must comply with Rule 1.8(a).
 In taking the reasonable measures referred to in paragraph (a)(2) to assure that a person using law-related services understands the practical effect or significance of the inapplicability of the Rules of Professional Conduct, the lawyer should communicate to the person receiving the law-related services, in a manner sufficient to assure that the person understands the significance of the fact, that the relationship of the person to the business entity will not be a client lawyer relationship. The communication should be made before entering into an agreement for provision of or providing law related services, and preferably should be in writing.
 The burden is upon the lawyer to show that the lawyer has taken reasonable measures under the circumstances to communicate the desired understanding. For instance, a sophisticated user of law related services, such as a publicly held corporation, may require a lesser explanation than someone unaccustomed to making distinctions between legal services and law related services, such as an individual seeking tax advice from a lawyer accountant or investigative services in connection with a lawsuit.
 Regardless of the sophistication of potential recipients of law related services, a lawyer should take special care to keep separate the provision of law related and legal services in order to minimize the risk that the recipient will assume that the law related services are legal services. The risk of such confusion is especially acute when the lawyer renders both types of services with respect to the same matter. Under some circumstances the legal and law related services may be so closely entwined that they cannot be distinguished from each other, and the requirement of disclosure and consultation imposed by paragraph (a)(2) of the Rule cannot be met. 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 in the distinct entity that the lawyer controls complies in all respects with the Rules of Professional Conduct.
 A broad range of economic and other interests of clients may be served by lawyers engaging in the delivery of law-related services. Examples of law related services include providing title insurance, financial planning, accounting, trust services, real estate counseling, legislative lobbying, economic analysis, social work, psychological counseling, tax preparation, and patent, medical or environmental consulting.
 When a lawyer is obliged to accord the recipients of such services the protections 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(a)(2) 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 law related services must also to all respects comply with Rules 7.1 through 7.3, dealing with advertising and solicitation. In that regard, lawyers should take special care to identify the obligations that may be imposed as a result of a jurisdiction’s decisional law.
 When the full protections of all of the Rules of Professional Conduct do not apply to the provision of law related services, principles of law external to the Rules, for example, the law of principal and agent, govern the legal duties owed to those receiving the services. Those other legal principles may establish a different degree of protection for the recipient with respect to confidentiality of information, conflicts of interest and permissible business relationships with clients. See also Rule 8.4 (Misconduct).
S.C. Ethics Op. 13-03 (n.d.) (title insurance agency is example of law-related service
ABA Rule 6.5 (Court annexed/Non-profit limited scope)
Same as Model Rule.
 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 once 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.
 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.
 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.
 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 Rules 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.
 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.
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
(1) pay the reasonable costs of advertisements or communications permitted by this Rule;
(2) pay the usual charges of a legal service plan or a not-for-profit lawyer referral service, which is itself not acting in violation of any Rule of Professional Conduct; and
(3) pay for a law practice in accordance with Rule 1.17.
 Except as permitted under paragraphs (c)(1)-(c)(3), lawyers are not permitted to pay others 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 airtime, 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) (division of fees) and 5.4 (professional independence of the lawyer), and the lead generator’s communications are consistent with Rule 7.1 (communications concerning a lawyer’s services). 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 from the lawyer, or has analyzed a person’s legal problems when determining which lawyer should receive the referral. See also Rule 5.3 (duties of lawyers and law firms with respect to the conduct of nonlawyers who prepare marketing materials for them); Rule 8.4(a) (duty to avoid violating the Rules through the acts of another).
 A lawyer may pay the usual charges of a legal service plan or a not-for-profit lawyer referral service, which is itself not acting in violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct. A legal service plan is a prepaid or group legal service plan or a similar delivery system that assists people who seek to secure legal representation. A lawyer referral service, on the other hand, is any organization that holds itself out to the public as a lawyer referral service. Such referral services are understood by the public to be consumer-oriented organizations that provide unbiased referrals to lawyers with appropriate experience in the subject matter of the representation and afford other client protections, such as complaint procedures or malpractice insurance requirements. Consequently, this Rule only permits a lawyer to pay the usual charges of a not-for-profit lawyer referral service. The “usual charges” may include a portion of legal fees collected by a lawyer from clients referred by the service when that portion of fees is collected to support the expenses projected for the referral service.
 A lawyer who accepts assignments or referrals from a legal service plan or referrals from a lawyer referral service must act reasonably to assure that the activities of the plan or service are compatible with the lawyer’s professional obligations. See Rule 5.3. Legal service plans and lawyer referral services may communicate with the public, but such communication must be in conformity with these Rules. Thus, advertising must not be false or misleading, as would be the case if the communications of a group advertising program or a group legal services plan would mislead the public to think that it was a lawyer referral service sponsored by a state agency or bar association. See also Rule 7.3(b).
S.C. Ethics Op. 13-09 (2013) (lawyer may not pay real estate agency for “Preferred Closing Attorney” designation in agency materials and other opportunities to access agency clients)
S.C. Ethics Op. 13-03 (2013) (lawyer may rent office space from real estate agency as condition of “preferred attorney” status if rent amount commercially reasonable).
S.C. Ethics Op. 11-05 (2011)(lawyer may use website company to advertise internet “daily deal” coupon, whereby company receives client’s coupon fee, retains portion, and forwards remainder to lawyer; retained sum is cost of advertising and not prohibited referral fee),
S.C. Ethics Op. 93-05 (1993) (lawyer may not participate in ancillary business with accountant whereby lawyer provides capital, management advice, and referrals in exchange for accounting business’s cross-referrals to him).
No opinions available.
Comment 6 to Rule 1.1, RPC, Rule 407, SCACR, is amended to provide:
 To maintain the requisite knowledge and skill, a lawyer should keep abreast of changes in the law and its practice, including a reasonable understanding of the benefits and risks associated with technology the lawyer uses to provide services to clients or to store or transmit information related to the representation of a client, engage in continuing study and education and comply with all continuing legal education requirements to which the lawyer is subject
Source: SC Judicial Branch