Can a lawyer volunteer for a free legal aid program run by a fraternal or charitable organization for its members' needy relatives?

Plain-English summary

A lawyer asked about participating in a proposed legal aid program by a charitable organization, the American Hellenic Educational Progressive Association (AHEPA), an established charitable and benevolent organization. AHEPA was considering a program to offer free legal services to needy persons related to members in the county, with lawyer-members participating voluntarily on a rotation basis and the organization setting financial-eligibility guidelines so that only those with sufficiently low resources qualified. The committee assumed the lawyers would donate their services to further the organization's fraternal and charitable purposes.

The committee explained that Canon 35 (Intermediaries) provides that a lawyer's professional services should not be controlled by a lay agency intervening between client and lawyer, and that a lawyer's responsibility should be direct to the client, but that Canon 35 also provides that charitable societies rendering aid to indigents are not deemed intermediaries. Assuming the program met those requirements, the committee saw no problem of professional ethics even though the organization served as the central point through which needy persons reached the lawyers, and it said a rotation of assignments to render free services to deserving persons was not improper. It cautioned that the participating lawyers would encounter ethics problems if they used the program to attract and channel other professional employment to themselves, which could violate principles on advertising, solicitation, and lay intermediaries. The committee noted the Supreme Court's decisions in NAACP v. Button and Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen v. Virginia, but did not readily see any direct application of those holdings to the question.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in June 1966, before The Florida Bar's adoption of the 2006 revisions to the Rules of Professional Conduct. It applied the former Canon 35 on lay intermediaries. The professional-independence concern is now addressed by Rule 4-5.4 of the Rules Regulating The Florida Bar (Model Rule 5.4), with related advertising and solicitation rules at Rules 4-7.11 through 4-7.22. Subsequent rule amendments and Supreme Court decisions on group and prepaid legal services have changed the framework. Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance.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 the lawyer volunteer for the fraternal society's free legal aid program?

A: Yes. The committee saw no professional-ethics problem, provided the program met Canon 35's requirement that the society not control or intervene in the attorney-client relationship.

Q: Why was the charitable society not treated as an improper intermediary?

A: The committee noted Canon 35 itself provided that charitable societies rendering aid to indigents are not deemed intermediaries, so the organization could serve as the central contact point.

Q: What limit did the committee place on participating lawyers?

A: They must not use the program to attract and channel other professional employment to themselves, which could violate the principles on advertising, solicitation, and lay intermediaries.

Background and rules framework

The opinion applied the former Canon 35 on intermediaries between lawyer and client, relying on its exception for charitable societies aiding indigents. Today the professional-independence concern is addressed by Rule 4-5.4 of the Rules Regulating The Florida Bar, with advertising and solicitation under Rules 4-7.11 through 4-7.22; the Model Rule analogue for the independence point is Rule 5.4. The committee referenced the First Amendment associational-rights cases but found no direct application to the program before it.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• Canon 35 [Canons of Professional Ethics; see current Rule 4-5.4]

Cases:

• Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen v. Virginia ex rel. Virginia State Bar, 377 U.S. 1 (1964)
• NAACP v. Button, 371 U.S. 415 (1963)

See also

• FL Bar Ethics Op. 67-37: Legal Aid Program Conflicts
• FL Bar Ethics Op. 66-72: Lawyers and Credit Bureaus

Source

• Landing page: https://www.floridabar.org/etopinions/etopinion-66-24/
• Original PDF: https://www-media.floridabar.org/uploads/2017/04/FL-Bar-Ethics-Op-66-24.pdf

Original opinion text

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

FLORIDA BAR ETHICS OPINION
OPINION 66-24
June 2, 1966
Advisory ethics opinions are not binding.
There is no impropriety in participation by an attorney in a legal aid program organized by a fraternal society, provided there would be no interference by the society with the attorney-client relationships.
Canon: 35
Cases: Brotherhood of R.R. Trainmen v. Virginia ex rel. Virginia State Bar, 377 U.S. 1 (1964); NAACP v. Button, 371 U.S. 415 (1963)
Chairman Kittleson stated the opinion of the committee:
A member of The Florida Bar has requested the Committee's advice on participation in a proposed legal aid program under the auspices of a charitable organization, The American Hellenic Educational Progressive Association (AHEPA). We understand the facts to be these. AHEPA is a well-known and established charitable and benevolent organization with chapters throughout the Western Hemisphere. Several attorneys, including the inquirer, are members of chapters in their county. AHEPA has under consideration a program to offer free legal services to needy persons who are related to members of the organization in this county. The legal services would be rendered by the lawyer-members and they would participate voluntarily on a rotation basis. The organization would establish guidelines regarding financial resources and ability to pay, and only those whose financial resources and ability is sufficiently low would be entitled to the free legal services.
We are not advised whether, under the program as proposed, the participating attorneys would be paid by the organization (or anyone else) for the legal services rendered to the recipients. For the purposes of this opinion, we assume that the lawyers will donate their services to further the fraternal and charitable purposes of the organization.
Canon 35, entitled "Intermediaries," provides that the professional services of a lawyer should not be controlled by any lay agency, personal or corporate, which intervenes between client and lawyer; that a lawyer's responsibilities and qualifications are individual; and that a lawyer's relation to his client should be personal and his responsibility should be direct to the client. Canon 35 does provide, however, that charitable societies rendering aid to indigents are not deemed intermediaries.
Assuming that the situation meets the requirements of Canon 35, as expressed above, the Committee sees no problem of professional ethics, even though the organization does serve as the central point through which the needy persons reach the lawyer.
A rotation among interested and willing lawyers of assignments to render free legal services to deserving persons is not improper. But the participating lawyers will encounter problems of professional ethics if they use the program to attract and channel other professional employment to themselves; this could violate the ethical principles relating to advertising, solicitation, and lay intermediaries.
The Committee is aware of the opinions of the Supreme Court of the United States in NAACP v. Button, 371 U.S. 415 (1963), and Brotherhood of R.R. Trainmen v. Virginia ex rel. Virginia State Bar, 377 U.S. 1 (1964). The committee does not readily see any direct application of the holdings in those cases to the question under consideration.