Can a lawyer sue a former client pro se for unpaid fees from a non-litigation matter, and must the lawyer try mediation first?
Apply this to your situation
This page answers the general question as of 1999. Ezel answers yours: whether it's allowed on your facts, under the current Massachusetts Rules of Professional Conduct, with citations.
Plain-English summary
A lawyer wanted to sue a former client for unpaid bills arising from a representation that had not involved litigation, and asked whether he could do so pro se. The concern was Rule 3.7, which generally bars a lawyer from acting as advocate at a trial in which the lawyer is likely to be a necessary witness, subject to an exception where the testimony relates to the nature and value of legal services rendered "in the case."
The committee gave two reasons the rule did not bar the suit. First, it read the Rule 3.7(a)(2) exception, by reference to Comment 3, to apply only where the lawyer seeks a fee in the very proceeding in which the services were rendered, which did not fit a non-litigation matter. Second, and more decisively, it relied on Supreme Judicial Court decisions interpreting the predecessor disciplinary rule, Borman v. Borman and Gorovitz v. Planning Board of Nantucket, which held that the general statutory right of self-representation, G. L. c. 221, sec. 48, includes a lawyer's right to sue pro se notwithstanding the advocate-witness rule. The committee quoted Borman for the point that the rule regulates lawyers serving as counsel and witness for a party litigant, not the situation where the lawyer is the party litigant. The right to proceed pro se therefore overrode a literal reading of Rule 3.7.
On the second question, the committee looked at Comment 5 to Rule 1.5, which provides that in a fee dispute a lawyer "should conscientiously consider submitting to mediation or an established fee arbitration service." It concluded that neither the text of Rule 1.5 nor that comment required the lawyer to seek mediation; the comment asked only that he consider it.
Currency note
This opinion was issued in 1999, before Massachusetts's adoption of the 2015 revisions to the Rules of Professional Conduct. Subsequent rule amendments or later opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance. Verify against current rules before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or requirement mentioned here.
Common questions
Q: Did the advocate-witness rule bar a lawyer from suing a former client pro se for fees?
A: No. The committee concluded that the right of self-representation under G. L. c. 221, sec. 48, recognized in Borman and Gorovitz, overrode a literal reading of Rule 3.7, which regulates a lawyer serving as counsel and witness for a party litigant, not a lawyer who is the litigant.
Q: Did the Rule 3.7(a)(2) fee exception apply to a non-litigation matter?
A: The committee read that exception, with Comment 3, to apply only where the lawyer seeks a fee in the very proceeding in which the services were rendered, so it did not fit a fee suit arising from a non-litigation representation.
Q: Did the lawyer have to try mediation before suing?
A: No. The committee found that Comment 5 to Rule 1.5 asked the lawyer to consider mediation or fee arbitration but did not require it.
Background and rules framework
The opinion applied Mass. R. Prof. C. 3.7 (lawyer as witness, including the paragraph (a)(2) exception for testimony about the value of legal services) and Mass. R. Prof. C. 1.5 (fees, and Comment 5 on fee-dispute mediation). Both corresponded to the Model Rules of the same numbers as they stood at the time. The committee grounded the pro se analysis in the Supreme Judicial Court's interpretation of the predecessor rules DR 5-101(B) and DR 5-102(A).
Citations and references
Rules of Professional Conduct:
- Model Rule 3.7 / Mass. R. Prof. C. 3.7 (lawyer as witness; value-of-services exception)
- Model Rule 1.5 / Mass. R. Prof. C. 1.5 (fees; Comment 5 on fee-dispute mediation)
Statutes:
- G. L. c. 221, sec. 48 (general right of self-representation)
Cases:
- Borman v. Borman, 378 Mass. 775 (1979) (advocate-witness rule does not bar a lawyer-litigant from proceeding pro se)
- Gorovitz v. Planning Board of Nantucket, 394 Mass. 246 (1985) (same)
See also
- MA Bar Ethics Op. 00-2: Witness payments and equal loyalty to former joint clients
- MA Bar Ethics Op. 05-05: Lawyer as witness in a guardianship over a client
Source
Get today's answer for your situation
You just read a 1999 opinion on this question. Ezel checks the current Massachusetts Rules of Professional Conduct and answers your specific situation, with citations.
Opens in Ezel Pro. Every answer cites the rules it relies on.