Can a local bar association keep a shared file listing clients who are delinquent on attorney's fees, and may a lawyer take on a client who still owes another lawyer?

Plain-English summary

A member had understood that a lawyer may not ethically serve a client when the lawyer knows another attorney previously served the client and was not paid. He asked whether there was any objection to a local bar association maintaining a reference file, open to all members, listing persons or entities delinquent in paying attorney's fees. Information would come from attorneys, the names of delinquent clients would be furnished to other attorneys on request, and all other information would flow directly between the reporting and inquiring attorneys.

A majority of the committee did not favor the plan. It was not prepared to condemn it as unethical and disclaimed authority over legal considerations, but felt the arrangement was unprofessional and would tend to commercialize the profession, and that it possibly would violate Canon 37 on the confidential nature of attorney-client communications. One member thought the arrangement would be proper. On the second point, the committee corrected the member's premise: citing Drinker's treatise (page 200), it said a lawyer superseding another is not responsible for the first lawyer's fees, though the first lawyer is entitled to notice from a successor so he can protect his interests or any attorney's lien. The committee said it was not aware that it is unethical for one attorney to serve a client who is previously indebted to another attorney.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1964, before The Florida Bar's adoption of the 2006 revisions to the Rules of Professional Conduct. The opinion applied former Canons 7 and 37 of the Canons of Professional Ethics; the confidentiality of client information is now governed by Rule 4-1.6 of the Rules Regulating The Florida Bar (Model Rule 1.6). Subsequent rule amendments or later opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance. Verify against the current rules before relying on any specific requirement mentioned here.

Common questions

Q: Could a local bar keep a shared file of clients delinquent on fees?

A: A majority found it unprofessional and likely to commercialize the profession, and said it possibly would violate the confidentiality canon (former Canon 37). The committee stopped short of declaring it unethical, and one member thought it proper.

Q: Is it unethical to take a client who still owes another lawyer?

A: No. The committee said it was not aware of any such rule; a successor lawyer is not responsible for the prior lawyer's fees.

Q: What does the prior lawyer get?

A: Notice. Citing Drinker, the committee said the first lawyer is entitled to notice from a successor so he can protect his interests or any attorney's lien.

Background and rules framework

The opinion applied former Canon 7 (relations with other lawyers, including superseding counsel) and Canon 37 (confidences of a client). The confidentiality of client information is now governed by Rule 4-1.6 of the Rules Regulating The Florida Bar (Model Rule 1.6). The committee's confidentiality concern was that a shared delinquency file could expose information about the attorney-client relationship.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• Canon 37 [Canons of Professional Ethics; confidences of a client; see current Rule 4-1.6]
• Canon 7 [relations with other lawyers; superseding counsel]

See also

• FL Bar Ethics Op. 70-18: Representing a Client Who Discharged Prior Counsel
• FL Bar Ethics Op. 66-39: Substituting Counsel After a Prior Settlement

Source

• Landing page: https://www.floridabar.org/etopinions/etopinion-64-66/
• Original PDF: https://www-media.floridabar.org/uploads/2017/04/FL-Bar-Ethics-Op-64-66.pdf

Original opinion text

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

FLORIDA BAR ETHICS OPINION
OPINION 64-66
October 22, 1964
Advisory ethics opinions are not binding.
An arrangement whereby a local bar association would maintain a reference file listing the names of persons delinquent in payment of attorney's fees is unprofessional. It is not unethical for an attorney to render professional services to a client who is indebted to another attorney.
Canons: 7, 37
Chairman Smith stated the opinion of the committee:
A member of The Florida Bar states that it is his understanding an attorney may not ethically render professional services to a client when the attorney has knowledge that another attorney has previously served the client and not been paid for his services. He inquires if there is any legal or ethical objection to a local bar association maintaining a reference file, open to all members of the association, which file would list the names of persons or entities who are delinquent in payment of attorney's fees. The information list in the file would be received from attorneys and the names of delinquent clients would be furnished to other attorneys upon request. All other information, however, would flow directly between the reporting and the inquiring attorney.
A majority of this Committee does not look with favor upon such a plan. We are not prepared to condemn it as unethical and we have no authority to pass upon legal considerations. A majority of the Committee, however, feels that the arrangement is unprofessional and would tend to commercialize the profession. Further, it is possible that the arrangement would violate the provisions of Canon 37, which pertain to the confidential nature of communications between attorney and client.
One member of the Committee feels that the arrangement would be proper.
Attention is called to Drinker, Legal Ethics, page 200. There it is stated that a lawyer superseding another lawyer is not responsible for the fees due to the lawyer first employed. However, that lawyer is entitled to notice from a successor in order that he can take appropriate steps to protect his interests or any attorney's lien that may exist. We are not aware, as indicated in the inquiry, that it is unethical for one attorney to render professional services to a client who is previously indebted to another attorney.