Can a lawyer supervise a real estate closing by telephone while a paralegal is physically present at the closing?

Plain-English summary

The opinion addressed whether it was ethically permissible for a lawyer to participate by telephone from a remote site in a real estate closing at which a paralegal was physically present to witness signatures and ensure documents were signed properly. Building on Formal Advisory Opinion 86-5, which held that closing a real estate transaction constitutes the practice of law under O.C.G.A. 15-19-50, the Board concluded that the telephone arrangement was not permissible.

The Board treated the critical question as what constituted the lawyer's participation in the closing. It concluded that the lawyer had to be in control of the closing process from beginning to end, and that supervision of the paralegal had to be direct and constant. Under the described arrangement, the Board found the lawyer's participation less than meaningful: the lawyer was not in control of the closing from beginning to end and was brought in only after it had begun.

The Board reasoned that even if the paralegal stated they were not a lawyer and not giving legal advice, a purchaser, seller, or lender could look to the paralegal for advice or explanations normally provided by a lawyer. Allowing paralegals to appear at remote closings with the lawyer present only by telephone would increase the likelihood that the paralegal would be placed in circumstances requiring legal advice, explanation, or independent judgment. The Board concluded that the supervision standard was not met by the lawyer being available by telephone, and that the lawyer's physical presence would assure the direct and constant supervision required.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 2000, before the State Bar of Georgia's 2001 adoption of the Georgia Rules of Professional Conduct, which replaced the former Standards of Conduct. The opinion's reference to Standard of Conduct 24 corresponds to current Rule 5.5(a). Subsequent rule amendments or later opinions may have changed the analysis; notably, Formal Advisory Opinion 23-1 (2025) later concluded that a lawyer may participate in a closing by video conference where the lawyer controls the process from beginning to end. Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance. Verify against current rules before relying on any specific rule or requirement mentioned here.

Common questions

Q: Could a Georgia lawyer run a real estate closing by phone while a paralegal handled the room?

A: No. The opinion concluded that telephone participation, with only a paralegal physically present, did not give the lawyer control of the closing from beginning to end or provide the direct and constant supervision required, so it was not permissible.

Q: Why did the opinion treat a paralegal-run closing as a problem?

A: The opinion explained that closing a real estate transaction is the practice of law, and that a participant could look to the paralegal for advice or explanations normally given by a lawyer, creating a risk that the paralegal would exercise legal judgment and that the lawyer would be aiding the unauthorized practice of law.

Q: What did the opinion say the lawyer had to do instead?

A: The opinion concluded that the lawyer's physical presence at the closing would assure direct and constant supervision of the paralegal, and treated that presence as necessary under the arrangement described.

Background and rules framework

The opinion interpreted former Standard of Conduct 24 (a lawyer shall not aid a nonlawyer in the unauthorized practice of law), which the State Bar of Georgia's headnotes map to current Rule 5.5(a) (Model Rule 5.5), and addressed the supervision of nonlawyer assistants now governed by Rule 5.3 (Model Rule 5.3). It built on Formal Advisory Opinion 86-5 and the statutory definition of the practice of law in O.C.G.A. 15-19-50.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• Former Standard of Conduct 24 (aiding the unauthorized practice of law), now Georgia RPC 5.5(a) / Model Rule 5.5
• Georgia RPC 5.3 (responsibilities regarding nonlawyer assistants) / Model Rule 5.3

Statutes:

• O.C.G.A. 15-19-50 (definition of the practice of law)

Other opinions cited:

• Formal Advisory Opinion 86-5: closing a real estate transaction as the practice of law

See also

• GA Ethics Op. 23-1: Real Estate Closings by Video
• GA Ethics Op. 04-1: Real Estate Closing Proceeds and IOLTA

Source

• Landing page: https://www.gabar.org/handbook?rule=rule447

Original opinion text

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

STATE BAR OF GEORGIA

ISSUED BY THE SUPREME COURT OF GEORGIA

ON FEBRUARY 11, 2000

FORMAL ADVISORY OPINION NO. 00-3

For references to Standard of Conduct 24, please see Rule 5.5(a) .

For an explanation regarding the addition of headnotes to the opinion, click here .

QUESTION PRESENTED:

Ethical propriety of lawyers telephonically participating in real estate closings from remote sites.

SUMMARY ANSWER:

Formal Advisory Opinion No. 86-5 explains that a lawyer cannot delegate to a nonlawyer the responsibility to "close "the real estate transaction without the participation of an attorney. Formal Advisory Opinion No. 86-5 also provides that "Supervision of the work of the paralegal by the attorney must be direct and constant to avoid any charges of aiding the unauthorized practice of law."The lawyer's physical presence at a closing will assure that there is supervision of the work of the paralegal which is direct and constant.

OPINION:

Formal Advisory Opinion No. 86-5 (86-R9) issued by the Supreme Court states that the closing of real estate transactions constitutes the practice of law as defined by O.C.G.A. §15-19-50. Therefore, it is ethically improper for lawyers to permit nonlawyers to close real estate transactions. Correspondent inquires whether it is ethically permissible to allow a paralegal to be physically present at a remote site for the purpose of witnessing signatures and assuring that documents are signed properly. The paralegal announces to the borrower that they are there to assist the attorney in the closing process. The lawyer is contacted by telephone by the paralegal during the closing to discuss the legal aspects of the closing.

The critical issue in this inquiry is what constitutes the participation of the attorney in the closing transaction. The lawyer must be in control of the closing process from beginning to end. The supervision of the paralegal must be direct and constant.

Formal Advisory Opinion No. 86-5 states that "If the 'closing' is defined as the entire series of events through which title to the land is conveyed from one party to another party, it would be ethically improper for a nonlawyer to 'close' a real estate transaction."Under the circumstances described by the correspondent, the participation of the lawyer is less than meaningful. The lawyer is not in control of the actual closing processing from beginning to end. The lawyer is brought into the closing process after it has already begun. Even though the paralegal may state that they are not a lawyer and is not there for the purpose of giving legal advice, circumstances may arise where one involved in this process as a purchaser, seller or lender would look to the paralegal for advice and/or explanations normally provided by a lawyer. This is not permissible.

Formal Advisory Opinion No. 86-5 provides that "Supervision of the work of the paralegal by the attorney must be direct and constant to avoid any charges of aiding the unauthorized practice of law."By allowing a paralegal to appear at closings at remote sites at which lawyers are present only by telephone conference will obviously increase the likelihood that the paralegal may be placed in circumstances where the paralegal is actually providing legal advice or explanations, or exercising independent judgement as to whether legal advice or explanation is required.

Standard 24 is not met by the lawyer being called on the telephone during the course of the closing process for the purpose of responding to questions or reviewing documents. The lawyer's physical presence at a closing will assure that there is supervision of the work of the paralegal which is direct and constant.