UTAH STATE BAR
ETHICS ADVISORY OPINION COMMITTEE
For Main Opinion click here>>>
1. Dissents from a Utah Ethics Advisory Opinion are understandably rare because of the harmonious working relationship among Ethics Committee members and the shared objective: to provide well-researched and analyzed ethics opinions upon which Utah State Bar members can hopefully rely. It is, therefore, with some trepidation that I dissent from the main opinion. In my view, the main opinion is logically inconsistent with a Tenth Circuit decision that binds Utah lawyers in federal court; incompatible with judicial and ethics opinions in other jurisdictions; and potentially harmful to what I think should be the overriding ideal of all ethics opinions—to ensure justice for clients.
2. To begin, I believe the Committee’s framing of the issue is overly broad. As the Opinion states the issue: “May an attorney provide legal assistance to litigants appearing before tribunals pro se and prepare written submissions for them without disclosing the nature or extent of such assistance?” The Committee’s answer to that question is an unqualified “yes.” Yet, I believe the Committee’s categorical all-or-nothing, black-or-white answer, inclusive of “substantial” with “insubstantial” or quite limited legal services, is ill-advised and contrary to law. To me, the issue is not whether “insubstantial,” unbundled legal assistance for pro se litigants is permissible and ethical. No one has ever disagreed that such assistance is permissible, ethical and encouraged. In fact, Rule 1.2(c) of the Utah Rules of Professional Conduct provides for this type of limited representation.1 Instead, the issue for me, and most jurisdictions that analyze the issue, is whether undisclosed and “substantial” legal assistance, commonly called ghost-lawyering is ethical. Admittedly, the difference between “substantial and “insubstantial” can, in some circumstances, be ambiguous. Presumably, no one would argue that ghost-written appellate briefs or individualized complaints are “insubstantial”— or, to the contrary, that boiler-plate forms available to anyone on the Utah courts web-site (I assume written by lawyers) run afoul of current prohibitions against ghost-lawyering.
3. As described in Nevada Formal Opinion No. 34, issued in 2006,“Ghost-lawyering occurs when a member of the bar gives substantial legal assistance, by drafting or otherwise, to a party ostensibly appearing pro se, with the lawyer’s actual or constructive knowledge that the legal assistance will not be disclosed to the court.”2
4. Citing the same cases and law review articles as does our Committee in Opinion No. 74, the Nevada Opinion, as initially issued, came to an opposite result, concluding, as do I, that “ghost-lawyering is unethical unless the ghost-lawyer assistance and identity are disclosed to the court by the signature of the ghost-lawyer under Rule 11 [the same as Rule 11 of the Utah Rules of Civil Procedure] upon every paper filed with the court for which the ‘ghost-lawyer’ gave ‘substantial assistance’ to the pro se litigant by drafting or otherwise.”3
5. From the outset, there appears to be some disparity of perception between the main opinion and me over the potential harm in ghost-lawyering. The Committee writes, “It is not clear to this Committee at what point such a typical pro se party needing limited scope legal help has obtained ‘extensive’ or ‘substantial’ help that appears dishonest. Because over 80% of respondents and 49% of petitioners in divorce cases are unrepresented, these are the typical pro se parties and needed limited assistance of counsel.” The Committee further opines, “Therefore, the ‘unfair advantage’ that pro se parties ostensibly gain through the court’s liberal construction of their pleading—one of the bases for prohibiting ghost-writing—does not appear to apply under Utah law.” (more…)
OPINION NO. 08-01
For Dissent Opinion click here>>>
Issued April 8, 2008
1. Issue: May an attorney provide legal assistance to litigants appearing before a tribunal pro se and prepare written submissions for them without disclosing the nature or extent of such assistance? If so, what are the attorney’s obligations when full representation is not undertaken?
2. Opinion: Under the Utah Rules of Professional Conduct, and in the absence of an express court rule to the contrary, a lawyer may provide legal assistance to litigants appearing before tribunals pro se and help them prepare written submissions without disclosing or ensuring the disclosure to others of the nature or extent of such assistance. Although providing limited legal help does not alter the attorney’s professional responsibilities, some aspects of the representation require special attention.
3. Background: Our Committee has previously issued three opinions regarding limited-scope legal representation under certain circumstances regarding various aspects of limited-scope legal representation.1 These opinions were issued under the Utah Code of Professional Responsibility that was superseded by the Utah Rules of Professional Conduct, adopted by the Utah Supreme Court in 1988 and modified in certain respects by amendments that were adopted by the Court in November 2005. A synopsis of those opinions is found in Appendix A to this Opinion. In this opinion, we undertake a more comprehensive analysis of the “behind the scenes” limited representation under the current Utah rules.
4. Recently, the ABA Standing Committee on Ethics and Professional Responsibility has issued Formal Opinion 07-446 (May 5, 2007), comprehensively discussing assistance to pro se parties and expressly superseding ABA Informal Opinion 1414, which disapproved certain undisclosed assistance of pro se litigants under the prior Code of Professional Conduct. ABA Opinion 07-446 concluded that under the Model Rules of Professional Conduct, “a lawyer may provide legal assistance to litigants appearing before tribunals ‘pro se’ and help them prepare written submissions without disclosing or ensuring the disclosure of the nature or extent of such assistance.”
5. Analysis: In addressing the issue posed, we begin by recognizing that a new regulatory framework is in place nationally and in Utah that provides directly for limited-scope legal representation of clients who, for various reasons, engage lawyers for narrowly circumscribed participation in their legal affairs.
6. Rules of Professional Conduct: Rule 8.4(c) of the Rules of Professional Conduct prohibits “conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation.” However, none of the comments to that rule suggest that failure to notify opposing parties and the court of limited assistance to a pro se party involves such dishonest conduct.2 Recently issued ABA Formal Opinion 07-446 expressly concludes that it does not: “[W]e do not believe that nondisclosure of the fact of legal assistance is dishonest so as to be prohibited by Rule 8.4(c).” Because the Rules of Professional Conduct include comments that explain and illustrate “the meaning and purpose of the rule” and “are intended as guides to interpretation,”3 and because the ABA drafters certainly knew of Informal Opinion 1414, it would have been obvious to include this example to illustrate dishonest conduct if that had been intended. (more…)
UTAH STATE BAR
ETHICS ADVISORY OPINION COMMITTEE
Opinion No. 08-02
Issued March 11, 2008
¶ 1. Issue: Under what circumstances may an attorney who has represented a party in conjunction with a proceeding to appoint a guardian for an adult incapacitated person represent the guardian that is subsequently appointed as a result of that proceeding?
¶ 2. Conclusion: The representation of a court-appointed guardian by an attorney who has also represented one of the parties to the proceeding for the appointment of the guardian must be analyzed under Rules of Professional Conduct, Rules 1.7 and 1.9, the same way an attorney would analyze any conflict of interest between two current clients or between a current and former client. If the facts and circumstances of the case raise the specter of a direct or material adversity, or if the representation of another client creates a material limitation on the lawyer’s ability to represent the guardian effectively in light of the fiduciary, statutory and court imposed obligations on the guardian, the attorney should either avoid the joint representation or exercise great care in obtaining the informed written consent of both affected clients. If there is an on-going proceeding involving both the former client and the prospective new client (the guardian), the conflict may not be waived and the representation of the guardian must be avoided.
¶ 3. Background: The issue addressed by this opinion arises in the context of a request under Utah Code Ann. § 75-5-303 (1988) for the appointment of a guardian of an incapacitated person. Under that section, the incapacitated person herself or “. . . any person interested in the incapacitated person’s welfare may petition for a finding of incapacity and appointment of a guardian.1 Once the guardian is appointed, he or she may retain counsel to advise with respect to the conduct of the guardian’s duties.
¶ 4. The nature of the proceedings leading to the appointment of a guardian involve several parties, including the person (usually a relative) requesting the appointment. This person is frequently represented by counsel. The person for whom guardianship is required to be represented by counsel. The proceedings seeking the appointment may be largely consensual or they may be contested. Conflicts in the proceedings will primarily arise in two different contexts:
a) the party to the guardianship wishes to be appointed guardian, and other parties in interest object in favor of an unrelated third party guardianship or
b) the person for whom the guardianship is sought objects to the appointment.
Additional conflicts other may arise, depending on the nature of the guardianship proceeding and the identity of the parties to it, but should nonetheless be resolved as set forth below.
¶ 5. Analysis: If an attorney who has represented one of the parties in a contentious guardianship proceeding wishes to subsequently represent the person appointed as guardian, he or she must determine whether there is an impermissible conflict of interest in the subsequent representation. Resolution of the question is dependent on the facts of each given situation.
¶ 6. The conflict scenarios set forth above raise an issue under Utah Rule of Professional Conduct Rule 1.7 (Conflict of Interest: Current Clients) and Utah Rule of Professional Conduct Rule 1.9 (Duties to Former Clients), depending on whether the attorney continues to represent the party his or her previous client or whether the attorney withdraws from the prior representation. (more…)