Can a lawyer let a collection agency put the lawyer's name or signature on a summons the agency's lay staff prepared without the lawyer's involvement?
Apply this to your situation
This page answers the general question as of 1962. Ask about yours and see what the current Colorado Rules of Professional Conduct say for your facts, with citations.
Plain-English summary
Opinion 25 (adopted August 25, 1962; addendum issued 1995) addressed a lawyer who represented a collection agency. The agency's lay employees, with the lawyer's consent, prepared Justice Court summonses, placed the lawyer's name or signature on them along with the agency's telephone number, and answered calls from defendants without disclosing that they were not lawyers, leaving the impression that they were the lawyer's office. The lawyer had no knowledge of a case until just before trial, and many cases settled before then.
The Committee concluded the lawyer violated the Canons of Ethics. The agency was practicing law in preparing the summonses and negotiating with defendants, so the lawyer who let his name be used violated Canon 35 (lay intermediaries) and Canon 47 (aiding the unauthorized practice of law). Canon 9 was also implicated because the arrangement tended to mislead unrepresented defendants, whose dealings with the agency's lay staff were beyond the lawyer's knowledge or control. The lawyer further violated Canon 22 (candor and fairness with courts and other lawyers), because a summons bearing his name represented to the court and defendant that he had knowledge of the case and that it was drawn by him or under his direction and control. The Committee concluded that mere acquiescence in an arrangement placing the lawyer's name on documents he did not prepare and did not control was, without more, enough to make the conduct unethical, citing its prior Opinion 7 and ABA Opinion 35.
Currency note
This opinion was issued in 1962 under the former Canons of Professional Ethics, before the Colorado Rules of Professional Conduct took effect on January 1, 1993, and before Colorado's 2008 revisions to those rules. A 1995 addendum directed lawyers to Rule 1.1 (competence), Rule 1.3 (diligence), Rule 1.6 (confidentiality), Rule 3.3 (false statements to a tribunal), Rule 4.1 (false statements to third persons), Rule 5.3 (responsibilities regarding nonlawyer assistants), and Rule 5.6 as cited by the committee for assisting nonlawyers in the unauthorized practice of law. Subsequent rule amendments or later opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance. Verify against current rules before relying on any specific rule or requirement mentioned here.
Common questions
Q: Can a lawyer let a collection agency sign the lawyer's name to summonses it prepares?
A: No, under this opinion. The Committee concluded that letting the agency place the lawyer's name on summonses it prepared, outside the lawyer's direction and control, aided the unauthorized practice of law and misrepresented the lawyer's involvement.
Q: Why did the court and defendants matter to the analysis?
A: The opinion concluded that a summons bearing the lawyer's name represented to both the court and the defendant that the lawyer knew of the case and had drawn the summons or supervised it, so the false representation violated the candor canon and tended to mislead unrepresented defendants.
Q: Was the lawyer's lack of knowledge of the cases a defense?
A: No. The opinion treated the lawyer's lack of knowledge and control as part of the problem: because the agency's lay staff dealt with defendants beyond the lawyer's oversight, mere acquiescence in the arrangement was enough to make the conduct unethical.
Background and rules framework
The opinion applied the Canons of Professional Ethics: Canon 35 (lay intermediaries), Canon 47 (aiding the unauthorized practice of law), Canon 9 (avoiding misleading unrepresented persons), and Canon 22 (candor with courts and counsel). The 1995 addendum restates the analysis under the Colorado Rules of Professional Conduct, citing Rules 1.1, 1.3, 1.6, 3.3 (Model Rule 3.3, candor toward the tribunal), 4.1 (Model Rule 4.1), 5.3 (Model Rule 5.3, nonlawyer assistants), and the bar on assisting unauthorized practice (Model Rule 5.5).
Citations and references
Rules of Professional Conduct:
- Colo. RPC 3.3 / Model Rule 3.3 (candor toward the tribunal; per the 1995 addendum)
- Colo. RPC 4.1 / Model Rule 4.1 (truthfulness in statements to others; per the 1995 addendum)
- Colo. RPC 5.3 / Model Rule 5.3 (responsibilities regarding nonlawyer assistants; per the 1995 addendum)
- Colo. RPC 5.5 / Model Rule 5.5 (assisting the unauthorized practice of law; per the 1995 addendum)
Other opinions cited:
- ABA Committee on Professional Ethics Opinion 35 (lawyers and collection agencies)
- CBA Formal Opinion 7 (relationship between attorneys and collection agencies)
See also
- CBA Formal Op. 20: Suing or Collecting Unpaid Fees
- CBA Formal Op. 17: Lawyer Documents for a Non-Broker Sale Firm
Source
What do the rules say today, for your facts?
This opinion is from 1962. Ezel checks the current Colorado Rules of Professional Conduct against your situation and cites the rules it relies on.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace