Can a Florida law firm outsource legal support work to overseas attorneys or paralegals?

Plain-English summary

A member asked whether a firm may ethically outsource legal work to overseas attorneys or paralegals who are not admitted in Florida, doing tasks such as document preparation, transcription, contract drafting, litigation support, and legal research, with remote access to firm files and the ability to contact clients for needed information. The opinion identifies five areas of concern: unauthorized practice of law, supervision of nonlawyers, conflicts of interest, confidentiality, and billing.

On UPL, the committee sees no ethical distinction between hiring an overseas provider and a local one for paralegal-type services, and contracting for such services does not constitute aiding the unlicensed practice of law provided there is adequate supervision. Applying Rule 4-5.5 and the practice-of-law test from Florida Bar v. Sperry (with the public-protection focus of Florida Bar v. Moses), the committee notes it cannot itself decide whether the proposed activities are UPL; that is the attorney's obligation. On supervision, Rule 4-5.3 requires the lawyer to directly supervise nonlawyers and make reasonable efforts to ensure their conduct conforms to the ethics rules, regardless of whether the overseas provider is an attorney or lay paralegal; the opinion draws on Opinions 88-6 and 89-5 (nonlawyer interviews and real estate closings) and notes that adequate supervision may be harder across borders, requiring extra steps to familiarize foreign personnel with Florida's conflict and confidentiality rules.

On conflicts, the committee agrees with Los Angeles County Bar Opinion 518 that the lawyer must satisfy himself no conflicts preclude the representation and may be responsible for conflicts arising from the provider's relationships with others. On confidentiality, the committee believes the firm should limit the provider's access to only the information necessary for the particular client's work, give no access to other clients' information, and use contractual confidentiality provisions and periodic reminders (citing NYC Bar Opinion 2006-3), with attention to electronic-transmission security and to differing foreign data-breach laws, including assurances that data will be irretrievably destroyed after use. The firm should obtain prior client consent to disclose information it reasonably believes necessary to serve the client's interest under Rule 4-1.6(c)(1), considering whether the client would expect the firm to handle the matter personally and whether the nonlawyers will have more than a limited role. On billing, drawing on Consolidated Opinion 76-33 and 76-38, the firm may charge the actual cost of the overseas provider unless it would normally be overhead, must not duplicate charges, and may not separately charge in a contingent fee case for work usually incorporated into the standard fee. The committee concludes a lawyer is not prohibited from using an overseas provider as long as these obligations are adequately addressed.

In practice

Under the Florida rules as they stood at the time of this 2008 opinion (approved by the Board of Governors July 25, 2008), overseas outsourcing of legal support work is permitted if the lawyer manages five sets of duties. The opinion makes the controlling obligations supervision under Rule 4-5.3, avoiding assistance of UPL under Rule 4-5.5 (with the attorney, not the committee, determining whether a given task is the practice of law), conflicts checking, confidentiality under Rule 4-1.6 (including limiting the provider's access and securing data), and non-duplicative billing. It identifies cross-border supervision and differing foreign data-protection laws as areas warranting heightened scrutiny, and ties client disclosure to whether the client would expect personal handling and the provider's role.

Common questions

Q: Can a Florida firm send legal work to paralegals or lawyers abroad?

A: Yes. The opinion concludes a lawyer is not prohibited from engaging an overseas provider for paralegal assistance, provided the lawyer adequately addresses UPL, supervision, conflicts, confidentiality, and billing.

Q: Does outsourcing to a foreign provider count as assisting the unauthorized practice of law?

A: Not where there is adequate supervision. The opinion sees no ethical distinction from hiring a local provider, but states the attorney must determine whether any particular task constitutes the practice of law under Rule 4-5.5.

Q: What confidentiality steps does the opinion expect?

A: Per the opinion, the firm should limit the provider's access to only the information needed for the client's work, withhold other clients' information, use contractual confidentiality provisions and periodic reminders, secure electronic transmissions, and obtain assurances that data will be irretrievably destroyed after use.

Q: Can the firm bill the client for the overseas provider's cost?

A: The opinion permits charging the actual cost unless it would normally be overhead, bars duplicating charges, and prohibits separately charging in a contingent fee case for work usually incorporated into the standard fee.

Q: Does the client have to be told about the outsourcing?

A: The opinion ties disclosure to factors such as whether the client would reasonably expect the firm to handle the matter personally and whether the nonlawyers will have more than a limited role, and directs obtaining prior client consent to disclose information necessary to serve the client's interest under Rule 4-1.6(c)(1).

Background and rules framework

The opinion interprets Rule 4-1.6 (confidentiality of information, Model Rule 1.6), Rule 4-5.3 (supervision of nonlawyer assistants, Model Rule 5.3), and Rule 4-5.5 (unlicensed practice of law, Model Rule 5.5) of the Rules Regulating The Florida Bar. It applies the practice-of-law test from Florida Bar v. Sperry and the public-protection focus of Florida Bar v. Moses, and draws on prior Florida opinions and opinions from Los Angeles County and New York City.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• Model Rule 1.6 / Fla. Rule 4-1.6 (confidentiality of information)
• Model Rule 5.3 / Fla. Rule 4-5.3 (supervision of nonlawyer assistants)
• Model Rule 5.5 / Fla. Rule 4-5.5 (unlicensed practice of law)

Cases:

• Florida Bar v. Sperry, 140 So. 2d 587 (Fla. 1962), test for the practice of law
• Florida Bar v. Moses, 380 So. 2d 412 (Fla. 1980), public protection as the central concern

Other opinions cited:

• Fla. Ethics Ops. 68-49, 73-41, 76-33, 76-38, 88-6, 88-12, 89-5
• Los Angeles County Bar Op. 518; NYC Bar Formal Op. 2006-3

See also

• Florida Bar Op. 17-1: Fee Division With a Nonlawyer-Owned Out-of-State Firm
• Florida Bar Op. 12-2: Nonlawyer Use of a Lawyer's E-Portal Credentials
• Florida Bar Op. 12-3: Cloud Computing

Source

• Landing page: https://www.floridabar.org/etopinions/etopinion-07-2/
• Original PDF: https://www-media.floridabar.org/uploads/2017/04/FL-Bar-Ethics-Op-07-2.pdf

Original opinion text

Reproduced from the official source for research purposes. The linked source is authoritative.

FLORIDA BAR ETHICS OPINION
OPINION 07-2
January 18, 2008
Advisory ethics opinions are not binding.
A lawyer is not prohibited from engaging the services of an overseas provider to provide
paralegal assistance as long as the lawyer adequately addresses ethical obligations relating to
assisting the unlicensed practice of law, supervision of nonlawyers, conflicts of interest,
confidentiality, and billing. The lawyer should be mindful of any obligations under law
regarding disclosure of sensitive information of opposing parties and third parties.
Note: This opinion was approved by The Florida Bar Board of Governors on July 25,
2008.
RPC: 4-1.6, 4-5.3, 4-5.5,
OPINIONS: 68-49, 73-41, 76-33, 76-38, 88-6, 88-12, 89-5; Los Angeles County Bar
Association 518, City of New York Bar Association 2006-3
CASES: Florida Bar v. Moses, 380 So. 2d 412 (Fla. 1980); Florida Bar v. Sperry, 140 So.
2d 587 (Fla. 1962)
A member of the Florida Bar has inquired whether a law firm may ethically outsource
legal work to overseas attorneys or paralegals. The overseas attorneys, who are not admitted to
the Florida Bar, would do work including document preparation, for the creation of business
entities, business closings and immigration forms and letters. Paralegals, who are not foreign
attorneys, would transcribe dictation tapes. The foreign attorneys and paralegals would have
remote access to the firm’s computer files and may contact the clients to obtain information
needed to complete a form. In addition to the facts presented in the written inquiry, the
Committee was advised that the outsourcing company employs lawyers admitted to practice in
India who are capable of providing much broader assistance to law firms in the U.S. besides
outsourcing merely paralegal work, including contract drafting, litigation support, legal research,
and forms preparation. The details of the proposed activity are complex, and a number of issues
are potentially involved.
The inquiry raises ethical concerns regarding the unauthorized practice of law,
supervision of nonlawyers, conflicts of interest, confidentiality, and billing.
Law firms frequently hire contract paralegals to perform services such as legal research
and document preparation. It is the committee’s opinion that there is no ethical distinction when
hiring an overseas provider of such services versus a local provider, and that contracting for such
services does not constitute aiding the unlicensed practice of law, provided that there is adequate
supervision by the law firm.
Rule 4-5.5, Rules Regulating The Florida Bar, prohibits an attorney from assisting in the
unlicensed practice of law. In Florida Bar v. Sperry, 140 So. 2d 587, 591 (Fla. 1962), judg.
vacated on other grounds, 373 U.S. 379 (1963) the Court found that setting forth a broad

Page 2

definition of the practice of law was “nigh onto impossible” and instead developed the following
test to determine whether an activity is the practice of law:
. . .if the giving of [the] advice and performance of [the] services affect important
rights of a person under the law, and if the reasonable protection of the rights and
property of those advised and served requires that the persons giving such advice
possess legal skill and a knowledge of the law greater than that possessed by the
average citizen, then the giving of such advice and the performance of such
services by one for another as a course of conduct constitute the practice of law.
When applying this test it should be kept in mind that “the single most important concern
in the Court’s defining and regulating the practice of law is the protection of the public from
incompetent, unethical, or irresponsible representation.” Florida Bar v. Moses, 380 So. 2d 412,
417 (Fla. 1980). The Committee is not authorized to make the determination whether or not the
proposed activities constitute the unlicensed practice of law. It is the obligation of the attorney
to determine whether activities (legal work) being undertaken or assigned to others might violate
Rule 4-5.5 and any applicable rule of law.
Rule 4-5.3, Rules Regulating The Florida Bar, requires an attorney to directly supervise
nonlawyers who are employed or retained by the attorney. The rule also requires that the
attorney make reasonable efforts to ensure that the nonlawyers’ conduct is consistent with the
ethics rules. This is required regardless of whether the overseas provider is an attorney or a lay
paralegal. The comment to the rule states:
A lawyer must give such assistants appropriate instruction and supervision
concerning the ethical aspects of their employment, particularly regarding the
obligation not to disclose information relating to representation of the client. The
measures employed in supervising nonlawyers should take account of the level of
their legal training and the fact that they are not subject to professional discipline.
If an activity requires the independent judgment and participation of the lawyer, it
cannot be properly delegated to a nonlawyer employee.
Additionally, Florida Ethics Opinions 88-6 and 89-5 provide that nonlawyers (defined as
persons who are not members of The Florida Bar) may accomplish certain activities but only
under the “supervision” of a Florida lawyer.
In Florida Opinion 88-6, which discusses initial interviews that are conducted by
nonlawyers, this committee advised that:
the lawyer is responsible for careful, direct supervision of nonlawyer employees
and must make certain that (1) they clearly identify their nonlawyer status to
prospective clients, (2) they are used for the purpose of obtaining only factual
information from prospective clients, and (3) they give no legal advice concerning
the case itself or the representation agreement. Any questions concerning an
assessment of the case, the applicable law or the representation agreement would
have to be answered by the lawyer.

Page 3

Florida Ethics Opinion 89-5 provides that a law firm may permit a paralegal or other
trained employee to handle a real estate closing at which no lawyer in the firm is present if the
following conditions are met:
1. A lawyer supervises and reviews all work done up to the closing;
2. The supervising lawyer determines that handling or attending the closing will be no more
than a ministerial act. Handling the closing will constitute a ministerial act only if the
supervising lawyer determines that the client understands the closing documents in
advance of the closing;
3. The clients consent to the closing being handled by a nonlawyer employee of the firm.
This requires that written disclosure be made to the clients that the person who will
handle or attend the closing is a nonlawyer and will not be able to give legal advice at the
closing;
4. The supervising lawyer is readily available, in person or by telephone, to provide legal
advice or answer legal questions should the need arise;
5. The nonlawyer employee will not give legal advice at the closing or make impromptu
decisions that should be made by the supervising lawyer.
The committee has specifically addressed the employment of law school graduates who
are admitted in other jurisdictions in Florida Opinions 73-41 and 68-49. These opinions state
that a law firm may employ attorneys who are not admitted to the Florida Bar only for work that
does not constitute the practice of law.
Attorneys who use overseas legal outsourcing companies should recognize that providing
adequate supervision may be difficult when dealing with employees who are in a different
country. Ethics opinions from other states indicate that an attorney may need to take extra steps
to ensure that the foreign employees are familiar with Florida’s ethics rules governing conflicts
of interest and confidentiality. See Los Angeles County Bar Association Professional
Responsibility and Ethics Committee Opinion 518 and Association of the Bar of the City of New
York Committee on Professional and Judicial Ethics Formal Opinion 2006-3. This committee
agrees with the conclusion of Los Angeles County Bar Association Professional Responsibility
and Ethics Committee Opinion 518, which states that a lawyer’s obligation regarding conflicts of
interest is as follows:
[T]he attorney should satisfy himself that no conflicts exist that would preclude
the representation. [Cite omitted.] The attorney must also recognize that he or
she could be held responsible for any conflict of interest that may be created by
the hiring of Company and which could arise from relationships that Company
develops with others during the attorney’s relationship with Company.
Of particular concern is the ethical obligation of confidentiality. The inquirer states that
the foreign attorneys will have remote access to the firm’s computer files. The committee
believes that the law firm should instead limit the overseas provider’s access to only the
information necessary to complete the work for the particular client. The law firm should
provide no access to information about other clients of the firm. The law firm should take steps
such as those recommended by The Association of the Bar of the City of New York Committee
on Professional and Judicial Ethics Opinion 2006-3 to include “contractual provisions addressing

Page 4

confidentiality and remedies in the event of breach, and periodic reminders regarding
confidentiality.”
The requirement for informed consent from a client should be generally commensurate
with the degree of risk involved in the contemplated activity for which such consent is sought. It
is assumed that most information outsourced will be transmitted electronically to the legal
service provider. If so, an attorney must be mindful of, and receive appropriate and sufficient
assurances relative to, the risks inherent to transmittal of information containing confidential
information. For example, assurances by the foreign provider that policies and processes are
employed to protect the data while in transit, at rest, in use, and post-provision of services should
be set forth in sufficient detail for the requesting attorney. Moreover, foreign data-breach and
identity protection laws and remedies, where such exist at all, may differ substantially in both
scope and coverage from U.S. Federal and State laws and regulations. In light of such differing
rules and regulations, an attorney should require sufficient and specific assurances (together with
an outline of relevant policies and processes) that the data, once used for the service requested,
will be irretrievably destroyed, and not sold, used, or otherwise be capable of access after the
provision of the contracted-for service. While the foregoing issues are likewise applicable to
domestic service providers, they present a heightened supervisory and auditability concern in
foreign (i.e., non-U.S.) jurisdictions, and should be accorded heightened scrutiny by the attorney
seeking to use such services.1
The committee believes that the law firm should obtain prior client consent to disclose
information that the firm reasonably believes is necessary to serve the client’s interests. Rule 4-
1.6 (c)(1), Rules Regulating The Florida Bar. In determining whether a client should be
informed of the participation of the overseas provider an attorney should bear in mind factors
such as whether a client would reasonably expect the lawyer or law firm to personally handle the
matter and whether the non-lawyers will have more than a limited role in the provision of the
services. For example, in Opinion 88-12, we stated that a law firm’s use of a temporary lawyer
may need to be disclosed to a client if the client would likely consider the information to be
material.
In addition to concerns regarding the confidentiality of client information, there are
concerns about disclosure of sensitive information of others, such as an opposing party or third
party. In outsourcing, there is the possibility that information of others will be disclosed in
1 See, Indian data breach hits HSBC - 28 Jun 2006 - IT Week
www.itweek.co.uk/itweek/news/2159326/indian-breach-hits-hsbc, UK banks escape punishment
over India data breach, www.services.silicon.com/offshoring/0,3800004877,39155588,00.htm,
Indian call center under suspicion of ID breach, Cnet.com 2005-08-16 http://news.com.com/2100-
1029_3-5835103.html, Florida State Data Breach Result of Inappropriate Offshoring to India,
About.com 2006-04-1, http://idtheft.about.com/b/a/256546.htm, Outsourcing to India: Dealing with
Data Theft and Misuse, Morrison & Foerster White Paper November 2006,
http://www.mofo.com/news/updates/files/update02268.html. U.S. Firm Says Outsourcer Holding Its
Data Hostage, Paul McDougall, Information Week, August 7, 2007:
http://www.informationweek.com/story/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=201204202

Page 5

addition to the disclosure of client information. Lawyers should be mindful of any obligations
under law regarding disclosure of sensitive information of opposing parties and third parties,
particularly where the information concerns medical records or financial information.
Additionally, in Consolidated Opinion 76-33 and 76-38, regarding billing for nonlawyer
personnel, the committee stated:
[T]he lawyer should not in fact or effect duplicate charges for services of
nonlawyer personnel, and if those charges are separately itemized, the salaries of
such personnel employed by the lawyer should in some reasonable fashion be
excluded from consideration as an overhead element in fixing the lawyer’s own
fee. If that exclusion cannot, as a practical matter, be accomplished in some
rational and reasonably accurate fashion, then the charges for nonlawyer time
should be credited against the lawyer’s own fee.
As to whether knowledge and specific advance consent of the client as to such
uses of nonlawyer personnel, and charges therefor, are necessary, the Committee
majority feels that it is in some instances and is not in others. For example, it
would not seem appropriate for a lawyer to always have to seek the consent of the
client as to use of a law clerk in conducting legal research. And under EC 3-6 and
DR 3-104 the work delegated to nonlawyer personnel should be so much under
the lawyer’s supervision and ultimately merged into the lawyer’s own product
that the work will be, in effect, that of the lawyer himself, who presumably has
entered into a “clear agreement with his client as to the basis of the fee charges to
be made.” EC 2-19. However, we feel that such “clear agreement” could not exist
in many situations where the lawyer intends to make substantial use of nonlawyer
personnel, and to bill directly or indirectly therefor, unless the client is informed
of that intention at the time the fee agreement is entered into.
Therefore, if there is a potentiality of dispute with, or of lack of clear agreement
with and understanding by, the client as to the basis of the lawyer’s charges,
including the foregoing elements of nonlawyer time, whether or not the
nonlawyer personnel time is to be separately itemized, the lawyer’s intention to so
use nonlawyer personnel and charge directly or indirectly therefor should be
discussed in advance with, and approved by, the client. This would seem
especially the case where substantial use is to be made of any kind of such
nonlawyer services. See also EC 2-19 as to explaining to clients the reasons for
particular fee arrangements proposed.
The Committee suggests that the potentiality of such dispute or lack of clear
agreement and understanding referred to in the foregoing paragraph may exist in
the case of work to be done by nonlawyer personnel who are employed by the
lawyer and who perform services of a type known by the lay public to be
regularly available through independent contractors, e.g., investigators. The
Committee feels that such potentiality especially may exist where the lawyer
enters into a contingent fee arrangement with the client and then separately
itemizes charges to the client for the time of nonlawyer personnel who are full-

Page 6

time employees of the lawyer; the arrangement may be susceptible of
interpretation as involving charging the client for such nonlawyer services and at
the same time, in fact or effect, duplicating the charges by including the salaries
of such personnel as overhead and an element of the lawyer’s own fee, as
proscribed hereinabove.
The law firm may charge a client the actual cost of the overseas provider, unless the
charge would normally be covered as overhead. However, in a contingent fee case, it would be
improper to charge separately for work that is usually otherwise accomplished by a client’s own
attorney and incorporated into the standard fee paid to the attorney, even if that cost is paid to a
third party provider.
In sum, a lawyer is not prohibited from engaging the services of an overseas provider, as
long as the lawyer adequately addresses the above ethical obligations.