Ethics Advisory Opinions

UTAH STATE BAR

ETHICS ADVISORY OPINION COMMITTEE

Opinion No. 12-03

Issued December 13, 2012

ISSUE
1. May a community association management company profit from legal work performed by the company’s in-house attorney?

OPINION
2. A community association management company’s profiting from legal work performed by the company’s in-house attorney constitutes the improper sharing of fees with a non-lawyer in violation of Utah Rule of Professional Conduct 5.4(a).

BACKGROUND
3. An attorney is employed as in-house counsel for a community association management company. Although the company does not profit from the legal work the attorney performs, the company believes that other community association management companies routinely profit from the legal work performed by their respective in-house attorneys. Specifically, these companies collect a fee from their clients for legal services at a rate that is higher than the cost the companies incur in employing their corporate attorneys. The issue addressed in this Opinion stems from this practice.

Continue reading "Opinion No. 12-03" »

UTAH STATE BAR ETHICS ADVISORY OPINION COMMITTEE

Opinion No. 12-02

Issued May 1, 2012

ISSUE:

1. What are the ethical and practical considerations applicable to attorneys representing clients in the state of Utah under flat-fee or fixed-fee agreements (hereinafter referred to as “flat-fee agreements”)?

THIS OPINION WAS WITHDRAWN by the Board of Bar Commissioners for it's review.

UTAH STATE BAR

ETHICS ADVISORY OPINION COMMITTEE

Opinion No. 12-01

Issued January 10, 2012

ISSUE
1. Three related questions are before the Committee. The attorney states that she separately represented a woman and a man (the “wife” and “husband,” respectively), both prior to their marriage. She subsequently represented both parties after they were married. The parties subsequently went to trial seeking a divorce (the “divorce”). The first question is whether representation of the wife, prior to the marriage of the parties, in litigation (the “separate action”) constitutes a conflict which would preclude the attorney from representing the husband on appeal in the divorce? Second, does the fact that the attorney testified at the divorce trial as a percipient witness, preclude her from representing the husband on appeal. Third, does representation of the wife in litigation involving both husband and wife against a third party during the course of their marriage (the “joint litigation”), wherein, notwithstanding the attorney’s vigorous but unsuccessful advocacy of the wife’s position, the wife was dismissed from the case, preclude the attorney from representing the husband on appeal in the divorce, particularly where the attorney now believes the trial court was correct in dismissing the wife from the joint litigation?

Continue reading "Opinion No. 12-01" »

UTAH STATE BAR
ETHICS ADVISORY OPINION COMMITTEE
Opinion No. 11-02
Issued November 8, 2011
1. ISSUE: If an indigent litigation client asks his attorney for a financial gift, is the attorney permitted to provide that charitable gift or do the Utah Rules of Professional Conduct prohibit doing so?

2. OPINION: Utah Rule 1.8(e) prohibits “financial assistance” in connection with litigation, which includes paying living expenses for a client. However, a lawyer representing an indigent client may pay court costs, expenses of litigation and “minor expenses reasonably connected to the litigation.” The rule does not prohibit occasional small charitable gifts.

Continue reading "Opinion No. 11-02" »

UTAH STATE BAR
ETHICS ADVISORY OPINION COMMITTEE
Opinion No. 11-03

Issued November 15, 2011

1. ISSUE: Is it a violation of the Utah Rules of Professional Conduct for an attorney to ask a law student to undertake research using the law student’s free account and in breach of the student’s contract with Lexis and/or Westlaw?

2. OPINION: A lawyer who encourages or participates in a law student’s violation of the student’s contractual obligation to the electronic research service violates the Rules of Professional Conduct.

Continue reading "Opinion No. 11-03" »