May a Connecticut public defender pay an indigent client's transportation, lodging, court clothing, or occasional meal expenses?

Plain-English summary

Rule 1.8(e)(2) permits a lawyer representing an indigent client to pay court costs and litigation expenses on the client's behalf. The Committee concludes that the provision applies to public defenders as well as private and nonprofit lawyers because the exception is not limited by the lawyer's employer or by whether the representation is pro bono.

The covered expenses must be integral to the litigation. The opinion permits a train or bus ticket and a hotel room needed for the client to attend court. It also permits clothing for a court or other litigation appearance because the client's appearance may affect the judge, jury, witnesses, and lawyers. By contrast, transportation for medical treatment and a driver's-license restoration fee are not litigation expenses under the cited authorities.

The inquiry also asked about occasionally buying the client lunch during a meeting. The Committee treats that meal as de minimis and part of ordinary civil discourse, not as financial assistance. The opinion notes that Connecticut Rule 1.8(e) otherwise had no general humanitarian exception at the time.

In practice

Under this opinion, the Rule 1.8(e)(2) exception reaches expenses directly tied to an indigent client's participation in litigation, including necessary court travel, lodging, and appearance clothing. It does not extend to living or treatment expenses merely because the client is involved in a case.

Common questions

Q: May a public defender buy an indigent client a bus or train ticket to court?

A: Yes. The opinion concludes that travel enabling the client to attend a court hearing is a litigation expense under Rule 1.8(e)(2).

Q: May the lawyer pay for a hotel near the courthouse?

A: Yes, when the client must stay overnight near the court for the litigation appearance.

Q: May the lawyer buy clothing for the client's court appearance?

A: Yes. The Committee concludes that clothing worn to court or another litigation appearance can affect participants in the proceeding and qualifies as a litigation expense.

Q: Does an occasional meal during a lawyer-client meeting violate Rule 1.8(e)?

A: The opinion says no. It treats such a meal as de minimis and an ordinary courtesy rather than financial assistance.

Q: Does Connecticut's rule contain a general humanitarian exception?

A: No, according to the opinion as issued. Assistance outside the stated Rule 1.8(e) exceptions is not permitted merely because it serves a humanitarian purpose.

Background and rules framework

Rule 1.8(e) generally prohibits financial assistance connected with pending or contemplated litigation. Paragraph (1) permits payment of litigation costs and expenses when repayment may depend on the outcome; paragraph (2) permits a lawyer for an indigent client to pay those costs and expenses without repayment. Because the inquiry involved no expected repayment, the Committee relied on paragraph (2).

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• Connecticut Rule 1.8(e)
• ABA Model Rule 1.8(e)

Cases:

• Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Kandel, 563 A.2d 387, 389 (1989), living and medical-treatment transportation expenses
• Louisiana State Bar Association v. Edwins, 329 So. 2d 437, 446 (La. 1976), assistance to indigent clients
• The Florida Bar v. Taylor, 648 So. 2d 1190 (Fla. 1994), assistance to indigent clients

Other opinions cited:

• Connecticut Informal Opinion 93-12, medical testing integral to litigation
• Connecticut Informal Opinion 00-21, transportation and lodging for litigation appearances
• Connecticut Informal Opinion 04-02, driver's-license restoration fee
• Connecticut Informal Opinions 90-03 and 11-10, absence of a humanitarian exception
• Connecticut Informal Opinion 18-05, nominal gifts

See also

• RI Ethics Op. 93-07: Litigation costs for indigent clients
• NY State Bar Op. 786: Pro bono litigation expenses
• Virginia LEO 1830: De minimis gifts to jailed clients

Source

• Landing page: Connecticut Bar Association Informal Ethics Opinions
• Original PDF: Informal Opinion 20-03