What are a volunteer lawyer's ethical duties when giving free legal help at a self-help center, Access to Justice Room, or Law Day table?

Plain-English summary

The opinion summarizes a volunteer attorney's ethical obligations at three kinds of events: self-help centers that provide only legal information, Access to Justice Rooms (the Oahu self-help centers, where volunteers may give legal advice in limited areas such as debt collection, landlord-tenant, small claims, non-family TROs, and, at Kapolei, family court matters), and Law Week tables where volunteers provide legal information to the public. It opens with HRPC 6.1's reminder that every lawyer has a responsibility to provide legal services to those unable to pay.

The opinion identifies four ethical concerns. On limited scope, it concludes that when an attorney gives legal advice an attorney-client relationship forms and HRPC 1.2(c) requires the client's consent after consultation to limit the scope, while at information-only events HRPC 7.1 bars omitting material information about the limited nature of the services. On confidentiality, it concludes that where advice is given HRPC 1.6 requires confidentiality, but at information-only events the attorney must ensure the individual knows the discussion is not confidential.

On conflicts of interest, the opinion concludes that because an attorney-client relationship forms when advice is given, but normal conflicts screening is impractical at these events, HRPC 6.5(a) modifies the usual conflicts rules (1.7, 1.9, and 1.10); a volunteer must decline only if the attorney knows the new representation involves a conflict with a current or former client of the attorney or the attorney's firm. On solicitation, it concludes HRPC 7.3(a) prohibits soliciting clients for pecuniary gain at these events, though referrals to a neutral referral service are permitted and a volunteer willing to take a matter pro bono may do so consistent with any agreement with the sponsoring organization.

In practice

Under this opinion, a Hawaii lawyer staffing a self-help center or Law Day table should calibrate their duties to the event type. The opinion holds that giving legal advice creates a limited-scope attorney-client relationship triggering HRPC 1.2(c) consent, HRPC 1.6 confidentiality, and the modified conflicts analysis of HRPC 6.5(a), under which the lawyer must step back only on a known conflict, not an undiscovered one. At information-only events, the opinion's focus shifts to making the limited, non-confidential nature of the help clear under HRPC 7.1. In all cases, the volunteer may not use the event to solicit paying clients, but may make neutral referrals or take a matter pro bono.

Common questions

Q: Does giving advice at a self-help clinic create an attorney-client relationship?

A: The opinion concludes yes, when the volunteer gives legal advice; HRPC 1.2(c) then requires the client's consent to the limited scope, and HRPC 1.6 confidentiality applies.

Q: How do conflicts rules apply when there is no time to run a conflicts check?

A: The opinion concludes HRPC 6.5(a) relaxes the usual conflicts rules; the volunteer must decline only if the attorney actually knows the new matter conflicts with a current or former client of the attorney or the firm.

Q: Can a volunteer attorney solicit the people they help as paying clients?

A: No. The opinion concludes HRPC 7.3(a) bars soliciting clients for pecuniary gain at these events, though neutral referrals and taking a matter pro bono are permitted.

Q: What must be disclosed at information-only events?

A: Per the opinion, the volunteer must make clear, consistent with HRPC 7.1, that the services are limited in scope and that the discussion is not confidential.

Background and rules framework

The opinion interprets HRPC 6.1 (voluntary pro bono service), HRPC 1.2(c) (limiting the scope of representation with client consent), HRPC 1.6 (confidentiality), HRPC 6.5(a) (short-term limited legal services and modified conflicts screening), HRPC 7.1 (no false or misleading communication), and HRPC 7.3(a) (solicitation). These correspond to Model Rules 6.1, 1.2, 1.6, 6.5, 7.1, and 7.3.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct (Hawaii; cf. Model Rules):

• HRPC 6.1 (pro bono responsibility) (cf. Model Rule 6.1)
• HRPC 6.5(a) (short-term limited legal services; modified conflicts) (cf. Model Rule 6.5)
• HRPC 1.2(c) (limited-scope representation) (cf. Model Rule 1.2)
• HRPC 1.6 (confidentiality) (cf. Model Rule 1.6)
• HRPC 7.1 (no false or misleading communication) (cf. Model Rule 7.1)
• HRPC 7.3(a) (solicitation) (cf. Model Rule 7.3)

See also

• ABA Formal Op. 07-446: Undisclosed Assistance to Pro Se Litigants
• Alaska Ethics Op. 81-1: In-Person Pro Bono Offer and Solicitation

Source

• Landing page: https://dbhawaii.org/legal-ethics-advice-for-hawaii-lawyers/
• Original PDF: https://dbhawaii.org/wp-content/uploads/Formal-Opinion-50.pdf

Original opinion text

Reproduced from the official source for research purposes. The linked source is authoritative.
Disciplinary Board of the Hawaiʻi Supreme Court
201 Merchant Street, Suite 1600
Honolulu, Hawaiʻi 96813
Telephone (808) 599-1909
www.dbhawaii.org
Chairperson

Jeffrey P. Miller, Esq.
Vice Chairperson

Peter A. Horovitz, Esq.
Secretary

Board Members
R. Brian Black, Esq.
Sidney M. Fuke
Duane R. Miyashiro, Esq.
Carol K. Muranaka, Esq.
William J. Nagle, III, Esq.
Jeffrey S. Portnoy, Esq.
David M. Shanahan
William Stack, CFP
William J. Wynhoff, Esq.

Leta H. Price, Esq.

Treasurer

Tanya M. Hellum, MBA
Disciplinary Board Administrative Director

Faye F. Hee

Board Counsel

Philip H. Lowenthal, Esq.

FORMAL OPINION NO. 50
(VOLUNTEER LEGAL SERVICES}

“Every lawyer, regardless of professional prominence or
professional work load, has a responsibility to provide legal
services to those unable to pay, and personal involvement in the
problems of the disadvantaged can be one of the most rewarding
experiences in the life of a lawyer.” HRPC 6.1 cmt. 1. The Preamble
of the HRPC reminds attorneys to devote time and resources to those
who do not have access to justice because of economic or social
barriers:
A lawyer should be mindful of deficiencies in the
administration of justice and of the fact that the poor,
and sometimes persons who are not poor, cannot afford
adequate legal assistance. Therefore, all lawyers should
devote professional time and resources and use civic
influence to ensure equal access to our system of justice
for all those who because of economic or social barriers
cannot afford or secure adequate legal counsel. A lawyer
should aid the legal profession in pursuing these
objectives and should help the bar regulate itself in
the public interest.
In fulfilling this responsibility, many attorneys contribute
pro bono legal services through self-help centers or Law Day
tables. This opinion summarizes an attorney’s ethical obligations
during these events.
FACTS
The Hawaiʻi Judiciary in partnership with the Hawaiʻi Access
to Justice Commission, Legal Aid Society of Hawaiʻi (“Legal Aid”),
Hawaii State Bar Association (“HSBA”), and the county bar
associations, established self-help centers in 2012 to provide
The Disciplinary Board’s mission is to maintain the integrity of the legal profession
and protect the public from professional misconduct by attorneys.

legal information to self-represented litigants. And as a
community service, the Young Lawyers Division of the HSBA has
organized tables of volunteer lawyers to provide legal information
to shoppers in or around the entrances to large shopping areas and
at farmers’ markets during Law Week (the first week of May).
Volunteer attorneys work in shifts to provide legal information,
referral information to relevant legal service organizations if
necessary, and brochures or information from Legal Aid, the Hawaiʻi
State Judiciary, and other organizations on particular topics if
relevant to an inquiry.
Access to Justice Rooms, the self-help centers on Oahu (First
Judicial Circuit), are different. At those events volunteer
attorneys may provide legal advice—in addition to legal
information—to those who seek help. Currently, the Honolulu Access
to Justice Room provides legal advice in limited areas: debt
collection,
landlord-tenant,
small
claims
and
temporary
restraining orders related to non-family matters. The Kapolei
Access to Justice Room provides legal advice in family court
matters.
At self-help centers that provide only legal information,
individuals seeking assistance will sign a waiver acknowledging
that there is no attorney-client relationship, that assistance is
limited in time and scope and that communications with the attorney
are not confidential. At the Honolulu Access to Justice Room,
individuals seeking assistance will sign an acknowledgement
regarding confidentiality, and that assistance is limited in time
and scope. For remote services, individuals will verbally
acknowledge a similar disclosure during the intake process.
DISCUSSION
Volunteering at a self-help center, Access to Justice Room,
or table on Law Week is a valuable opportunity for attorneys to
promote an understanding of the law with the community. But such
activities must be conducted in accordance with HRPC.
Key ethical concerns raised by the volunteer work of attorneys
at self-help centers, Access to Justice Rooms, or Law Day
activities are as follows:
1.
Limited scope. A volunteer attorney must ensure that
individuals seeking assistance are aware of the limited scope of
the services to be provided. When attorneys provide legal advice,
an attorney-client relationship forms, and HRPC Rule 1.2(c)
requires that the client consent after consultation to limit the
scope of the attorney’s services. For events involving only legal
information, HRPC Rule 7.1 prohibits the volunteer attorney from

omitting material information about the limited nature of services
that will be provided. Information about the limited scope of the
attorney’s services may be provided through an intake process or
directly by the volunteer attorney at the start of the
conversation.
2.
Confidentiality. For events where attorneys provide legal
advice, HRPC Rule 1.6 requires confidentiality for those client
communications. For events that provide only legal information,
consistent with HRPC Rule 7.1, an attorney must ensure that an
individual seeking assistance knows that the discussion is not
confidential. This information may be provided through an intake
process or directly by the volunteer attorney at the start of the
conversation.
3.
Conflicts of interest. When volunteer attorneys provide legal
advice through these sponsored events, an attorney-client
relationship is formed. But recognizing the limited nature of that
relationship and the impracticality of normal conflicts screening,
HPRC Rule 6.5(a) modifies the normal application of the conflicts
of interest rules (Rules 1.17, 1.9, and 1.10) for these events.
Volunteer attorneys must decline a client at the event only if the
attorney knows that representation of the new client involves a
conflict of interest with a current or former client of the
attorney or the attorney’s law firm.

4.
Solicitation. HRPC Rule 7.3(a) prohibits volunteer attorneys
from soliciting clients for pecuniary gain at these sponsored
events. Referrals to a neutral referral service (e.g., the HSBA
referral service or a legal service organization) are permitted,
even if the attorney is registered to receive referrals for
potential clients through that service. If a volunteer attorney is
willing to take a matter pro bono, the attorney may do so, but
must abide by any agreements with the sponsoring organization
(e.g., agreements to volunteer at the Access to Justice Rooms
currently require that attorneys send the matter to Legal Aid with
a preference for referral to the volunteer attorney).
DATED: Honolulu, Hawaiʻi, July 31, 2025.

JEFFREY P. MILLER
CHAIRPERSON, DISCIPLINARY BOARD

RAYMOND KONG
CHIEF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL