Ethics Advisory Opinion No. 97-01

(Approved January 24, 1997)
Issue:
What is the ethical obligation of an attorney to a client or former client, when the attorney is unable to locate the client, and the attorney is holding trust funds on behalf of that client?

Opinion: The first obligation of an attorney under these circumstances is to secure the funds on behalf of the client1as against all other possible claimants. In other words, if the funds are still held in the form of a check, the attorney should take care to endorse the check and deposit it into the attorney’s trust account to insure that the funds are not eventually lost to the client simply by the passage of time or the expiration of the client’s right to negotiate the instrument. (more…)

Ethics Advisory Opinion No. 97-02

(Approved January 24, 1997)
Issue:
Is information provided by an accused to his attorney in an initial telephone conference confidential as against a request from law enforcement authorities for such information?

Opinion: Information given to an attorney in an initial telephone conference by an individual whom the attorney has agreed to represent is confidential, even against a request for such information by law enforcement authorities seeking to apprehend the accused client.
Facts: After he had learned there was a warrant for his arrest as a suspect for a felony charge, an individual contacted an attorney by telephone. The individual gave information to the attorney, including a telephone number through which he could be contacted. The attorney agreed to represent the client solely to assist the client in turning himself in to the authorities. After the initial telephone conference, the attorney made contact with law enforcement authorities and made arrangements for the client to turn himself in. The client was to contact the attorney again but did not do so. The attorney was unable to make contact with the client to advise him of the arrangements made with the authorities. A law enforcement officer subsequently contacted the attorney and proposed to have the attorney contact the client while the officer was on the telephone line; he also requested the client’s telephone number from the attorney. The attorney declined both of the requests, even after the law enforcement officer suggested the attorney could be prosecuted for harboring a fugitive from justice. (more…)

Ethics Advisory Opinion No. 97-03

(Approved April 25, 1997)
Issue:
May an attorney engage in a direct solicitation, by mail and for pecuniary gain, that advertises mediation and arbitration services?
Opinion: A solicitation that is limited to alternative dispute resolution services is not prohibited, provided that the solicitation makes it clear to all parties that the alternative dispute resolution services are not legal services and that no attorney-client relationship will be established.

Analysis: An attorney proposes to engage in providing mediation and arbitration services and advertises those services by mail. The first sentence of the attorney’s letter to a prospective client would read: “Recently, you entered into legal proceedings with another party in connection with a dispute which you have.” The solicitation recites a number of disadvantages to litigation and compares them with the advantages of alternative dispute resolution (ADR). The solicitation also identifies the attorney as a “licensed Attorney with 14 years of experience in business, employment and contracting law as well as litigation experience,” and it explains the ADR services that are available through the attorney’s business. (more…)

Ethics Advisory Opinion No. 97-04

(Approved April 25, 1997)
Issue:
May a law firm furnish lists of clients’ names, addresses and telephone numbers to securities brokers, financial planners, insurance salesmen and other professionals, without receiving prior permission from the clients?

Opinion: Information given to an attorney by his client, including the client’s name, address and telephone number, is confidential, and the attorney is prohibited from disclosing such information under Rule 1.6 unless the client consents after consultation.
Facts: As a result of providing legal services to its clients, a law firm has acquired a large number of names, addresses and telephone numbers of clients. The firm believes that various professionals, such as securities brokers, financial planners, insurance salesmen and others, would be interested in acquiring the firm’s client list. The firm also believes that its clients may benefit from receiving information from these other professionals. The firm has requested an opinion on whether it can ethically provide its client list to these other professionals for a fee without obtaining prior consent of its clients. Alternatively, the firm asks whether it can ethically furnish its client list to these professional if it does not charge a fee. (more…)

Ethics Advisory Opinion No. 97-05

(Approved April 25, 1997)
Issue No. 1: Is it ethical for an attorney to receive payment for legal services other than in money?
Opinion: The Utah Rules of Professional Conduct permit an attorney to accept payment for legal services in a form other than money. All arrangements for payment of an attorney’s fees, however, must comply with the applicable provisions of the Utah Rules of Professional Conduct concerning fees and the attorney-client relationship.
Issue No. 2: Is it ethical for an attorney to barter legal services through a barter exchange?

Opinion: Although an attorney’s bartering of legal services through a barter exchange is not prohibited per se by the Utah Rules of Professional Conduct, such bartering is unethical if the attorney’s conduct or the structure, terms, or conditions of the attorney’s arrangements with the barter exchange violate any of the Utah Rules of Professional Conduct. (more…)

Ethics Advisory Opinion No. 97-06

(Approved May 30, 1997)
Issue:
Under the Utah Rules of Professional Conduct, what are the ethical limitations that govern attorneys’ acceptance of clients’ credit cards to pay fees and costs?

Opinion: Generally, attorneys may accept payment for fees and costs by credit card in the same way that other merchants and service-providers do. This general conclusion is, in part, in conflict with Utah Ethics Advisory Opinion No. 21, which is accordingly overruled.
Background: In 1975, the Utah Ethics Advisory Opinion Committee issued Opinion No. 21, which placed significant restraints on the acceptance of credit cards by attorneys in payment of fees and cost. That opinion was issued under the then-effective Code of Professional Responsibility, which, among other differences, is at variance with the current Utah Rules of Professional Conduct in the area of attorney advertising. To the extent the world of communicating about attorneys’ services has changed, this Committee has been asked to revisit the issue of attorneys’ acceptance of credit cards under today’s Rules. (more…)

Ethics Advisory Opinion No. 97-07

(Approved May 30, 1997)
Issue
: Is a lawyer, acting as a trustee under the United States Bankruptcy Code, required to maintain bankruptcy estate trust funds in a financial institution that complies with check-overdraft reporting requirements described in Rule 1.15?

Opinion: No. A lawyer, acting as a trustee under the United States Bankruptcy Code, is not required to maintain funds in a financial institution that complies with the check-overdraft reporting requirements of Rule 1.15, because the administration of such bankruptcy funds is not the practice of law.
Facts: Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 1302, the United States Trustee appointed a lawyer as a Chapter 13 trustee for the District of Utah.1As a Chapter 13 trustee, the lawyer is a fiduciary for Chapter 13 estates created upon filing a petition for relief under Chapter 13 of the Bankruptcy Code. On behalf of the Chapter 13 estate, the trustee receives money from Chapter 13 debtors. The trustee is bonded, submits regular reports and is audited on a regular basis by the United States Trustee. (more…)

Ethics Advisory Opinion No. 97-08

(Approved July 2, 1997)
Issue:
May an attorney, formerly employed by a government agency, represent a private client in challenging: (i) the validity or enforceability of statutes, rules, ordinances or procedures that the attorney participated in drafting; or (ii) specific contracts or easements that the attorney negotiated, drafted or reviewed for approval on behalf of the government agency?

Opinion: (i) As a general rule, a former government agency is not prohibited from representing a private client in matters that involve the interpretation or application of laws, rules or ordinances directly pertaining to the attorney’s employment with a government agency. (ii) The attorney may not, however, represent such a client where the representation involves the same lawsuit, the same issue of fact involving the same parties and the same situation, or conduct on which the attorney participated personally and substantially on behalf of the government agency. In any event, an attorney may not undertake representation adverse to any former client where the matter is substantially factually related to the matter for which the former client retained the attorney’s services. (more…)

Ethics Advisory Opinion No. 97-09

(Approved July 28, 1997)
The Opinion is the result of a specific inquiry from a Utah attorney who has proposed to provide legal services as outlined in the Facts section in the body of the Opinion. The Opinion addresses the ethical considerations of a lawyer who plans to perform certain estate-planning legal services in conjunction with a non-lawyer estate-planning professional who is not employed or retained by the lawyer. In general, we find that the lawyer must perform an independent role as legal advisor to the client, assuring that the estate plan and associated documents are legally appropriate to accomplishing the client’s objectives. (more…)

Ethics Advisory Opinion No. 97-10

(Approved October 24, 1997)
Issue:
May a Utah attorney advertise services on a web page or engage in other electronic advertising on the Internet?

Opinion: Attorneys may operate and maintain a web site and post advertisements to newsgroups, provided they comply with Rule 7. Advertising through e-mail messages, which are directed to specific recipients, is generally permissible unless it violates Rule 7.3(b). Attorneys’ participation in “chat groups” is considered to be an “in person” communication and subject to the restrictions of rule 7.3(a).
Analysis: Advertising legal services over the Internet is becoming common. The Ethics Advisory Opinion Committee has been asked to render an opinion about the ethical considerations of such practices under the Utah Rules of Professional Conduct. Web sites1and Internet communications are not specifically mentioned in Rule 7.22on advertising, although reference to advertisements through “public media” in that rule (telephone directory, legal directory, newspaper or other periodical, outdoor advertising, radio or television, or through written or recorded communication) makes the rule applicable to Web sites and other forms of Internet communication. (more…)

Ethics Advisory Opinion No. 97-11

(Approved December 5, 1997)
Issue:
May an attorney finance the expected costs of a case by borrowing money from a non-lawyer pursuant to a non-recourse promissory note, where the note is secured by the attorney’s interest in his contingent fee in the case?

Conclusion: An attorney’s grant of a security interest in a contingent fee from a particular case to secure a loan constitutes the sharing of fees with a non-lawyer in violation of Utah Rules of Professional Conduct 5.4(a).
Facts: “Attorney” has consulted with a private individual who is not an attorney (“Lender”). Lender proposes to loan to Attorney an agreed-on amount to be used for costs and expenses in pursuing a matter on behalf of Attorney’s client (“Client”). Attorney and Client have a contingent-fee agreement under which Attorney is responsible for costs, and under which Attorney is entitled to a percentage of the recovery. A promissory note would be executed under which an interest rate would be calculated on the basis of the risk of loss of the case and the fact that Attorney’s portion of the recovery would be the only source of repayment of the funds. Funds would be disbursed by Attorney in periodic draws as expenses were incurred. (more…)

Ethics Advisory Opinion No. 97-12

(Approved January 23, 1998)
Issue:
Utah Code Ann. § 62A-4a-403 obligates any person who suspects a child has been subjected to abuse to report such conduct to the nearest law enforcement officer. Is it a violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct if the attorney does not report a client’s conduct that falls under this provision when the attorney learns of such conduct from the client and the client refuses to consent to such disclosure?

Opinion: It is not a violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct if the attorney does not disclose such information, but the attorney may, to the extent the attorney believes necessary, disclose attorney-client information as provided in Rule 1.6(b). (more…)