Can a Georgia lawyer supervise a real estate closing by video conference instead of attending in person?
Apply this to your situation
This page answers the general question as of 2025. Ezel answers yours: whether it's allowed on your facts, under the current Georgia Rules of Professional Conduct, with citations.
Plain-English summary
The opinion answers a single question: whether a lawyer may satisfy the duties of "presence" at a real estate closing (required by Formal Advisory Opinion 00-3) and of overseeing the execution of instruments and controlling the closing from beginning to end (required by Formal Advisory Opinion 13-1) when the lawyer attends by video conference rather than in person. The Board concludes the lawyer may, provided the lawyer remains in control of the closing throughout.
The opinion reads the earlier "physical presence" language of FAO 00-3 in its original context: a paralegal was physically present with the clients and overseeing the execution of documents while the lawyer joined only after the closing had begun. In that setting the lawyer's absence created the appearance that a nonlawyer's judgment was substituting for the lawyer's, which assisted the unauthorized practice of law. The opinion treats the critical inquiry as the lawyer's actual participation and control, not the lawyer's physical location.
The opinion notes that neither Georgia statutory law nor the Georgia Rules of Professional Conduct requires an in-person meeting to transfer title, and that the Supreme Court of Georgia's Emergency Order of March 27, 2020 expressly declined to decide that physical presence is an absolute requirement and permitted "remote attendance" at closings during the pandemic. The Board concludes that video conference attendance, where the lawyer can see, hear, speak to, and exchange documents with the participants in real time, is the equivalent of physical presence.
The opinion places two limits on the conclusion: the lawyer must still comply with all generally applicable rules and the closing-specific opinions, and the lawyer must not use remote attendance to delegate the lawyer's duties to a nonlawyer or to narrow the scope of the lawyer's responsibility. The lawyer must maintain full professional and direct responsibility for the entire transaction and control the closing from beginning to end, consistent with FAO 13-1.
In practice
Under this opinion, conduct in which a Georgia lawyer attends and conducts a real estate closing by video conference, using technology that lets the lawyer and the parties see, hear, speak to, and display documents to one another in real time, is permitted so long as the lawyer controls the closing from beginning to end. The opinion treats such video attendance as the equivalent of physical presence.
The opinion holds that remote attendance may not be used to delegate the lawyer's duties to a nonlawyer or to encourage the unauthorized practice of law, and that remote notarization is permissible only if authorized by applicable state or federal law. Because the Supreme Court of Georgia denied discretionary review, the opinion is binding on the requestor and the State Bar of Georgia and is persuasive authority before the Court.
Common questions
Q: Does a Georgia lawyer have to be physically present at a real estate closing?
A: No. The opinion concludes that attending by video conference is the equivalent of physical presence, so long as the lawyer controls the closing process from beginning to end. The opinion notes that no Georgia statute or rule requires an in-person meeting to transfer title.
Q: What does "control of the closing process" mean under this opinion?
A: The opinion does not reduce control to a checklist; it ties the requirement to FAO 00-3 and 13-1, which require the lawyer to oversee and participate in the execution of the instruments and to be in control from beginning to end. The opinion's concern is that the lawyer's judgment, not a nonlawyer's, governs the closing.
Q: Can a paralegal run the closing while the lawyer joins by video?
A: No. The opinion reaffirms FAO 00-3's holding that delegating oversight of the closing to a nonlawyer assists the unauthorized practice of law. Remote attendance may not be used to delegate the lawyer's duties to a nonlawyer.
Q: Can documents be notarized remotely at a video closing?
A: The opinion permits the use of video conference technology for remote notarization of documents necessary to close the transaction only if remote notarization is authorized by applicable state or federal legislation.
Background and rules framework
The opinion does not turn on a single numbered Georgia rule. It interprets the prohibition on assisting the unauthorized practice of law (the subject of Georgia Rule of Professional Conduct 5.5 and, in its older numbering quoted through FAO 00-3, Standards of Conduct 4 and 5) and the lawyer's duty to supervise nonlawyer assistance (Georgia Rule 5.3). The Board's analysis builds on two earlier Formal Advisory Opinions, 00-3 and 13-1, which set the lawyer's duties of presence and control at real estate closings, and on the Supreme Court of Georgia's Emergency Order of March 27, 2020 permitting remote attendance.
The opinion situates the question in the broader shift toward video conference technology in legal practice, noting its routine use for depositions, hearings, and trials, and treats the technology as functionally equivalent to in-person attendance when it allows real-time interaction.
Citations and references
Rules of Professional Conduct:
- Georgia RPC 5.5 (unauthorized practice of law), interpreted as the prohibition on assisting nonlawyer practice
- Georgia RPC 5.3 (responsibilities regarding nonlawyer assistants)
- Standards of Conduct 4 and 5 (the older Georgia numbering quoted through FAO 00-3)
Other authority:
- Supreme Court of Georgia, Emergency Order of March 27, 2020 (remote attendance at real estate closings)
Other opinions cited:
- Formal Advisory Opinion 00-3: lawyer's presence and control at real estate closings
- Formal Advisory Opinion 13-1: lawyer's oversight and control of the closing process
- Formal Advisory Opinion 86-5: nonlawyer attendance at closings and unauthorized practice
See also
- ABA Formal Op. 498: Virtual Practice
- ABA Formal Op. 495: Lawyers Working Remotely
- ABA Formal Op. 506: Responsibilities Regarding Nonlawyer Assistants
Source
Original opinion text
Reproduced from the official source for research purposes. The linked source is authoritative.
STATE BAR OF GEORGIA
ISSUED BY THE FORMAL ADVISORY OPINION BOARD
PURSUANT TO BAR RULE 4-403 ON JANUARY 23, 2025
FORMAL ADVISORY OPINION NO. 23-1
Supreme Court Docket No. S25U1154
QUESTION PRESENTED:
Can a lawyer fulfill his or her duties of “presence” at a real estate closing as required by Formal Advisory Opinion No. 00-3 and of overseeing and participating in the execution of instruments conveying title and being in control of the closing process from beginning to end as required by Formal Advisory Opinion No. 13-1 when using video conference? [1]
SUMMARY ANSWER:
A lawyer closing a real estate transaction can satisfy their obligations under the Georgia Rules of Professional Conduct by performing those responsibilities incumbent upon them by the use of video conference so long as the lawyer is in control of the closing process from beginning to end.
OPINION:
The question presented is whether the Georgia Rules of Professional Conduct prohibit a lawyer from supervising the closing of a real estate transaction by video conference. rather than being physically present at the closing of the transaction. More specifically, can a lawyer fulfill his or her duties of “presence” at a real estate closing as required by Formal Advisory Opinion No. 00-3 and of overseeing and participating in the execution of instruments conveying title and being in control of the closing process from beginning to end as required by Formal Advisory Opinion No. 13-1 by the use of video conference?
While neither statutory law nor the Georgia Rules of Professional Conduct require an in-person meeting of all parties to a real estate transaction to consummate the transfer of title, it has been customary, particularly in the residential real estate closing practice, that a “closing” attended by some or all of the parties occurs. Previous opinions have addressed scenarios where a paralegal attends a closing in lieu of the responsible lawyer with the lawyer being available by telephone, concluding that such conduct was impermissible as encouraging the unauthorized practice of law. [2]
The specific reference in Formal Advisory Opinion No. 00-3 to the physical presence of the lawyer at closing was set in the context of where a paralegal was in the presence of the clients and overseeing the execution of documents. In that instance, the paralegal announced to the borrower that she was there to assist the lawyer in the closing process, yet the lawyer came into the closing only after it had begun. In this context, the Court determined that the lawyer’s delegation of oversight of the closing resulted in assistance of the “unauthorized practice of law by creating the reasonable appearance to others that the lawyer was substituting a nonlawyer’s legal knowledge and judgment for his or her own,” and by doing so would be “misrepresenting the nature of the services provided and the nature of the representation in violation of Standards of Conduct 4 and 5.” Formal Advisory Opinion No. 00-3 states “…the critical 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.”
These opinions, however, do not directly address the issue of the use of video conference whereby the attorney attends the real estate closing, and participates in the closing from beginning to end. Additionally, the Supreme Court of Georgia in its Emergency Order of March 27, 2020 [3] , reserved concluding that “physical presence” of an attorney at a closing was an “absolute” requirement. The Order states “The Court expresses no opinion about whether any of the Rules of Professional Conduct or any of these formal advisory opinions absolutely requires a lawyer to be physically present at the closing of a real estate transaction, and the Court issues this order only to alleviate any uncertainty about the obligation of closing attorneys to personally interact with others in close physical proximity during the ongoing COVID-19 outbreak”.
The use of video conference technology to conduct personal and professional meetings has become commonplace among the public and within the practice of law. The use of such technology has become routine for legal proceedings such as depositions, hearings and even bench and jury trials. In the context of real estate transactions, the Supreme Court of Georgia filed the Emergency Order March 27, 2020, permitting lawyers to use “remote attendance” at real estate closings. In such cases, the use of video conference technology is the equivalent of physical presence.
Neither the Georgia Rules of Professional Conduct nor the previous opinions of this Board expressly prohibit a lawyer from the use of video conference to attend and conduct a real estate closing, including the use of such technology for the remote notarization of documents necessary to close such transactions if authorized by applicable State or Federal legislation. However, the attorney participating by video conference must comply with those rules and safeguards that are already adopted by the State Bar of Georgia and the Supreme Court of Georgia, which are applicable generally under the Georgia Rules of Professional Conduct in addition to those formal advisory opinions specifically addressing the real estate practice. The lawyer shall maintain full professional and direct responsibility for the entire transaction and for the services rendered to the client. [4]
Additionally, the use of remote attendance by video conference must not be used to advance or encourage the unauthorized practice of law whereby the lawyer serves to delegate to a non-lawyer the duties of the lawyer, nor limit the scope of their responsibility. Finally, the lawyer in all real estate transactions must control the closing process from beginning to end, consistent with Formal Advisory Opinion No. 13-1.
The second publication of this opinion appeared on the State Bar of Georgia’s website, pursuant to Bar Rule 4-403 (d), and the State Bar of Georgia filed the opinion with the Supreme Court of Georgia on May 22, 2025. The State Bar of Georgia filed a petition for discretionary review with the Supreme Court on May 28, 2025. On July 1, 2025, the Supreme Court issued an order denying the petition. Accordingly, pursuant to Rule 4-403 (d) and (e), Formal Advisory Opinion No. 23-1, an opinion issued by the Formal Advisory Opinion Board, is binding on the requestor and the State Bar of Georgia, and not on the Supreme Court of Georgia, which shall treat the opinion as persuasive authority only.
1 The term “video conference” refers to a remote conference of persons in different locations that is facilitated by technology that enables each of the participants in the closing – the lawyer, the parties to the transaction and any representatives of the parties – to see, hear, speak to and display documents to each of the other participants in real time.
2 Formal Advisory Opinion Nos. 00-3 and 86-5
3 In Re: Georgia Rules of Professional Conduct and Lawyers Participating in Closings of Real Estate Transactions, March 27, 2022.
4 See Formal Advisory Opinion No. 13-1
Get today's answer for your situation
You just read a 2025 opinion on this question. Ezel checks the current Georgia Rules of Professional Conduct and answers your specific situation, with citations.
Opens in Ezel Pro. Every answer cites the rules it relies on.