Could a Colorado lawyer collaborate with financial planners, insurance agents, or document companies to market and prepare living-trust packages?

Plain-English summary

Opinion 87 considered living-trust packages marketed by financial planners, insurance agents, publishers, document “factories,” and other nonlawyers. It concluded that a lawyer who knowingly affiliated with a nonlawyer enterprise preparing and marketing individualized estate-planning documents aided unauthorized practice. The result applied both to a remote reviewing lawyer and to a local lawyer whose name was included with a document kit marketed by a publisher.

The opinion also rejected arrangements in which a client payment was split between lawyer and nonlawyer, a nonlawyer retained a sales commission from legal-service revenue, or the compensation disguised payment for referrals. Even separate payments could remain improper if the business relationship functioned as a partnership or feeder operation. The lawyer could not allow the marketer to control task allocation, client intake, or the lawyer's judgment about whether a living trust was appropriate.

An educational seminar did not automatically violate the ethics rules. The opinion permitted a general written evaluation form offering a free interview when the offer was not emphasized orally, did not pressure attendees, was labeled as advertising material where required, and the lawyer avoided individual advice and self-promotional emphasis during the seminar. Across all scenarios, the opinion also identified confidentiality and competence risks when a nonlawyer gathered client information or performed work requiring legal judgment.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1990 under the Colorado Code of Professional Responsibility and received a 1995 addendum mapping its analysis to the Colorado Rules of Professional Conduct. It predates Colorado's 2008 rule revisions. Later rules, unauthorized-practice decisions, advertising standards, and opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context and verify current authority before relying on a specific business arrangement.

Common questions

Q: Could a lawyer review living-trust packages produced and sold by a nonlawyer company?

A: Not in the arrangement described. The opinion concluded that the lawyer's review was integral to the nonlawyer company's preparation and marketing of legal documents and aided unauthorized practice.

Q: Could the lawyer split the customer's package fee with the financial planner or insurance agent?

A: No. The opinion concluded that sharing the payment for legal and estate-planning services with a nonlawyer violated the fee-sharing prohibition.

Q: Did separate payments to the lawyer and nonlawyer automatically cure the problem?

A: No. The opinion stated that separate compensation could still leave improper solicitation, partnership, unauthorized-practice, or independent-judgment concerns depending on how the venture operated.

Q: Could a lawyer speak at an estate-planning seminar sponsored by nonlawyers?

A: Yes, under limited conditions. The opinion required compliance with advertising and solicitation rules and prohibited individual advice or pressure designed to secure employment.

Background and rules framework

The opinion was written under the former Code and its 1995 addendum identified corresponding Colorado rules, including Rules 5.4 and 5.5 for fee sharing and unauthorized practice, Rules 7.1 through 7.3 for marketing, Rule 1.5(e) for referral fees, Rules 1.7, 1.8(f), 2.1, and 5.4(c) for independent judgment, Rule 1.6 for confidentiality, and Rule 1.1 for competence.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• Colo. RPC 5.4(a) and (b), 5.5(b), and 1.5(e) (nonlawyer fee sharing, partnership, unauthorized practice, and referral fees)
• Colo. RPC 7.1, 7.2, and 7.3 (advertising and solicitation)
• Colo. RPC 1.7, 1.8(f), 2.1, and 5.4(c) (independence and third-party influence)
• Colo. RPC 1.6 and 1.1 (confidentiality and competence)

Cases:

• People v. Schmitt, 251 P.2d 915 (Colo. 1952), nonlawyer preparation and marketing of living trusts
• People v. Macy, 789 P.2d 188 (Colo. 1990), lawyer participation in nonlawyer living-trust packages
• People v. Boyls, 591 P.2d 1315 (Colo. 1979), lawyer collaboration with nonlawyer trust salespeople
• People v. Cassidy, 884 P.2d 309 (Colo. 1994), later authority identified in the addendum

Other opinions cited:

• ABA Formal Opinions 87-355 and 88-356: nonlawyer plans and temporary lawyers
• CBA Formal Opinions 12, 17, 63, 79, and 83: intermediaries, unauthorized practice, and solicitation

See also

• CBA Formal Op. 98: Law-Related Businesses
• ABA Formal Op. 87-355: For-Profit Prepaid Legal Service Plan

Source

• Landing page: https://www.cobar.org/ethicsopinions
• Original PDF: Colorado Formal Ethics Opinion 87