Can a law firm's paralegal prepare real estate documents, attend closings alone, and use a 'Legal Assistant' title on cards and stationery?

Plain-English summary

A Florida firm hired a graduate of a paralegal institute and asked the committee four questions about the employee's role in the firm's work for a condominium-developer client: whether she could prepare real estate documents under an attorney's supervision, attend unit-sale closings in the firm's office without an attorney present, identify herself as a "Legal Assistant" on the phone and in firm letters, and use a firm-name business card listing "Legal Assistant" below her name.

The committee answered the first question yes, relying on EC 3-6, which permits and encourages the use of such personnel where the attorney supervises the delegated work and takes complete professional responsibility for the work product. It answered the remaining three no. On closings, the committee reasoned that the only purpose for her attendance would be to give legal advice, and her presence could be construed as answering unasked questions about the documents. On the "Legal Assistant" title, the majority found the term had no official meaning and could mislead clients into thinking the non-lawyer was a licensed lawyer. On the business card, the committee adhered to Opinion 73-4 in concluding that a firm name on a lay employee's card carried the appearance of professional status and a suggestion of advertising. Each holding drew a partial dissent.

Currency note

Portions of this opinion have been overruled: the holdings on the "Legal Assistant" term and business cards were overruled by Opinion 86-4, and the holding on the non-lawyer employee's attendance at closings was overruled by Opinion 89-5. This opinion was also issued in 1974, before The Florida Bar's adoption of the 2006 revisions to the Rules of Professional Conduct, and it applied the former Code of Professional Responsibility. Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance. Verify against current Rules 4-5.3 and 4-5.5 before relying on any specific requirement mentioned here.

Common questions

Q: Could the paralegal prepare real estate documents for the firm's client?

A: Under this opinion, yes, where she worked under an attorney's supervision and direction and the attorney took complete professional responsibility for the work, relying on EC 3-6.

Q: Could she attend closings without an attorney present?

A: At the time, no. The committee reasoned her only purpose for attending would be to give legal advice. That holding was later overruled by Opinion 89-5.

Q: Could she use the "Legal Assistant" title or a firm-name business card?

A: At the time, no; the majority found the title could mislead and the firm-name card suggested professional status and advertising. Those holdings were later overruled by Opinion 86-4.

Background and rules framework

The opinion applied EC 3-6 of the former Code of Professional Responsibility, which addressed the delegation of work to non-lawyer assistants under a lawyer's supervision and responsibility. In current Florida practice the supervision of non-lawyer assistants corresponds to Rule 4-5.3, and the unauthorized-practice concerns underlying the committee's limits correspond to Rule 4-5.5; the Model Rule analogues are 5.3 and 5.5.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• CPR EC 3-6 (use of non-lawyer assistants under attorney supervision)

Other opinions cited:

• Florida Opinion 73-4 (since withdrawn): firm name on a lay employee's business card
• ABA Informal Opinions 909 and 1185: lay employee business cards

See also

No sibling opinions yet indexed.

Source

• Landing page: https://www.floridabar.org/etopinions/etopinion-73-43/
• Original PDF: https://www-media.floridabar.org/uploads/2017/04/FL-Bar-Ethics-Op-73-43-1.pdf

Original opinion text

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

FLORIDA BAR ETHICS OPINION
OPINION 73-43
March 18, 1974
Advisory ethics opinions are not binding.
A graduate of a paralegal institute who is employed by a law firm may, under the supervision and direction of an attorney, prepare real estate documents for which the attorney takes complete professional responsibility.
Note: The portions of this opinion concerning use of the term "Legal Assistant" and business cards have been overruled by Opinion 86-4. The portions of this opinion concerning the nonlawyer employee's attendance at closings have been overruled by Opinion 89-5.
CPR: EC 3-6
Opinions: 73-4; ABA Informal 909, 1185
Vice Chairman Sullivan stated the opinion of the committee:
A Florida firm has hired an employee who is a graduate of the Paralegal Institute of New York. One of the firm's clients is a condominium developer. A member of the firm asks:

1. Whether the employee, working under the supervision and direction of an attorney in the firm, may prepare for that attorney real estate documents which the attorney is preparing for the firm's condominium developer client.
2. Whether the employee may attend closings of sales of condominium units to be held in the firm's office but without any attorneys in the firm being present. She will give no legal advice.
3. Whether the employee may identify herself in telephone conversations and when writing letters on firm stationery as a Legal Assistant below her name.
4. Whether the employee may use business cards with the firm name and with the words Legal Assistant below her name.
   We answer the first question in the affirmative. We recognize the increased use of such personnel and that EC 3-6 of the Code of Professional Responsibility not only permits but encourages their use provided the attorney supervises the work so delegated and takes complete professional responsibility for the work product.
   We answer the second question in the negative. The question itself recognizes that the employee may not give legal advice or perform any acts that would amount to practicing law. The Committee, one member dissenting in part, is of the opinion that there is no reason for the employee to attend the closings except to give legal advice and that her presence could be construed as answering unasked questions about the propriety or legality of documents. One Committeeman is of the opinion that the employee may properly attend such closings provided she does nothing more than distribute documents for signature.
   We answer the third question in the negative, two members of the Committee dissenting in part. The Supreme Court of Florida, which has exclusive jurisdiction to regulate the admission of persons to the practice of law, has not authorized any non-lawyers to do work that would constitute the practice of law. It has not created any category of personnel designated as Legal Assistant or Paralegal. Those terms have no official meaning and no precise definition that is generally applied or accepted.
   The majority of the Committee is of the opinion that the use of the term Legal Assistant might mislead clients or others into believing that such a non-lawyer assistant is a licensed lawyer or has expertise or authority he or she does not in fact possess. Two members of the Committee are of the opinion that it is not improper for such an employee to use the designation Legal Assistant as long as it is clear from the conversation or letter that the employee is acting on behalf of a lawyer and not purporting to give legal advice or to express opinions on matters involving professional judgment.
   We answer the fourth question in the negative. In Opinion 73-4 [since withdrawn], the Committee, after considering ABA Opinions 909 and 1185 which appeared to allow it, stated that the name of the law firm should not be shown on the business card of a lay employee because of the appearance of professional status and the suggestion of advertising. We adhere to that opinion here.