Can a nonlawyer union employee supervise a union's lawyer, both when the lawyer represents the union and when the lawyer represents an individual union member?
Apply this to your situation
This page answers the general question as of 2002. Ezel answers yours: whether it's allowed on your facts, under the current rules of professional conduct in your state, with citations.
Plain-English summary
Opinion 314 (adopted June 2002) interprets Rule 5.4(c), which provides that a lawyer "shall not permit a person who recommends, employs, or pays the lawyer to render legal services for another to direct or regulate the lawyer's professional judgment in rendering such legal services." A labor union asked whether the rule is violated if a nonlawyer union employee supervises a union attorney who (1) represents the union, or (2) represents a union member, and whether it matters if the member's matter arises from collective bargaining or from a separate statutory proceeding. The opinion notes the same issues arise for lawyers employed by corporations and trade associations.
On the first question, the opinion concludes a nonlawyer union employee may supervise a lawyer representing the union, because Rule 5.4(c) addresses services rendered "for another," and here the employing organization is the client. Under Rule 1.13(a), a lawyer for an organization represents the entity acting through its authorized constituents, who may be nonlawyers, and the organization may assign a nonlawyer to supervise its legal staff (citing Restatement sections 10 and 96). The opinion is careful to add that the lawyer never surrenders professional judgment: under Rule 1.2 the lawyer need not pursue every objective the client wishes, and under Rule 1.16(a)(1) must withdraw rather than carry out instructions that would violate the Rules, even though the employer being the only client makes that harder personally.
On the second question, the answer turns on whether the union lawyer has an attorney-client relationship with the member, which is a question of substantive law. In collective-bargaining grievances, courts generally hold the grievance belongs to the union (which owes a duty of fair representation), and the lawyer represents the union, not the individual member (citing Vaca v. Sipes, Peterson v. Kennedy, and Gwin). If the union is the only client, Rule 5.4(c) is not triggered. But where the lawyer does not represent the member, Rule 4.3 requires the lawyer to clarify that the lawyer is not disinterested and to correct any misunderstanding, and Rule 1.13(b) requires explaining the client's identity when the organization's and the constituent's interests may diverge. If the lawyer represents both, Rule 1.7(b) conflicts may arise (sometimes waivable with consent, sometimes requiring withdrawal). And if the lawyer represents the member (including in a separate legal-services matter like a will or a divorce), Rule 5.4(c) does apply, so no union official, lawyer or not, may direct the lawyer's judgment, and Rule 1.8(e) governs the union's payment for the member's representation.
In practice
Under the D.C. rules as they stood at the time of the opinion, the opinion concludes a nonlawyer union employee may supervise a union lawyer who represents the union, because the union is the client acting through its agents, while the lawyer still must keep independent professional judgment and withdraw rather than violate the Rules. It concludes a nonlawyer union employee may not direct a union lawyer who is representing a union member, because Rule 5.4(c) forbids the payer or employer from controlling the lawyer's judgment when the services are for another.
The opinion ties the outcome to whether an attorney-client relationship exists with the member, a substantive-law question, and notes that in collective-bargaining grievances courts usually treat the union as the only client. Where the lawyer is not the member's lawyer, the opinion concludes Rule 4.3 and Rule 1.13(b) require clarifying the lawyer's role; where the lawyer is the member's lawyer (including outside the grievance context), Rule 5.4(c) and Rule 1.8(e) apply. Because the opinion predates later rule developments, verify the current D.C. rules before relying on specific requirements.
Common questions
Q: Can a nonlawyer at a union supervise the union's own lawyer?
A: The opinion concludes yes. When the lawyer represents the union, the union is the client acting through its authorized agents under Rule 1.13, so Rule 5.4(c) is not triggered and a nonlawyer employee may supervise.
Q: Can that nonlawyer also direct the lawyer when the lawyer represents a union member?
A: The opinion concludes no. If the lawyer represents the member, Rule 5.4(c) bars a union official (lawyer or not) from directing or regulating the lawyer's professional judgment in serving the member.
Q: Who is the client in a collective-bargaining grievance?
A: The opinion concludes that is a question of substantive law, and notes courts generally hold the grievance belongs to the union and the lawyer represents the union, not the individual member, so Rule 5.4(c) often does not come into play.
Q: Does it matter if the member's matter is unrelated to bargaining, like a will or divorce?
A: The opinion concludes that in such legal-services-plan matters an attorney-client relationship with the member is generally expected, so Rule 5.4(c) applies and the union may not direct the lawyer's judgment, with Rule 1.8(e) governing the union's payment.
Background and rules framework
The opinion interprets D.C. Rule 5.4(c) (a lawyer may not let a person who employs or pays the lawyer to serve another direct the lawyer's professional judgment), read with Rule 1.13 (organization as client, acting through constituents), Rule 1.2 (scope; the lawyer keeps independent judgment), Rule 4.3 (clarifying the lawyer's role to an unrepresented person), Rule 1.7 (conflicts in any dual representation), and Rule 1.8(e) (third-party payment). It relies on prior D.C. Opinions 94, 135, 269, 225, and 289, the Restatement, and labor-law decisions on the duty of fair representation.
Citations and references
Rules of Professional Conduct:
- D.C. RPC 5.4(c) / Model Rule 5.4(c) (professional independence; no direction by the payer/employer)
- D.C. RPC 1.13 / Model Rule 1.13 (organization as client)
- D.C. RPC 1.2, 4.3, 1.7, 1.8(e) / Model Rules 1.2, 4.3, 1.7, 1.8(f) (scope; unrepresented persons; conflicts; third-party payment)
Cases:
- Vaca v. Sipes, 386 U.S. 171 (1967) (union's duty of fair representation)
- Peterson v. Kennedy, 771 F.2d 1244 (9th Cir. 1985) (lawyer in a grievance represents the union, not the member)
- Gwin v. National Marine Engineers Beneficial Ass'n, 966 F. Supp. 4 (D.D.C. 1997) (same)
Other opinions cited:
- D.C. Ethics Opinions 94, 135, 225, 269, 289
- ABA Formal Op. 87-355 (1987); ABA Formal Op. 01-421 (2001); Alaska Op. 99-3 (1999)
See also
- ABA Formal Op. 01-421: A Lawyer Working Under Insurance Company Guidelines
- ABA Formal Op. 03-430: Insurance Staff Counsel Representation and Naming
- DC Ethics Op. 322: Paying a Nonlawyer a Share of Case Profits
Source
- Landing page: https://www.dcbar.org/for-lawyers/legal-ethics/ethics-opinions-210-present/ethics-opinion-314
Get today's answer for your situation
You just read a 2002 opinion on this question. Ezel checks the current rules of professional conduct in your state and answers your specific situation, with citations.
Opens in Ezel Pro. Every answer cites the rules it relies on.