How must a Minnesota lawyer keep a law practice separate from debt-collection-agency work?

Plain-English summary

The opinion's premise was that a lawyer's activities should be separate from, and be perceived by the public to be separate from, the activities of debt collection agencies, because blurring that distinction could lead to abuses of debtors and reflect poorly on the profession. It then set guidelines whose violation could constitute grounds for discipline.

The guidelines varied by the lawyer's relationship to the agency. A lawyer who both practiced law and ran a debt collection agency could not identify as a lawyer on the agency's signage, could not share the agency's telephone number, had to use separate letterhead, and was subject to the advertising rules (Rules 7.1 through 7.5) for any agency advertising that identified the lawyer. A lawyer who merely represented or did legal work for an agency could not share the agency's phone number, office address, or letterhead. A lawyer employed as the agency's in-house counsel could share the phone number, address, and letterhead, subject to further conditions.

The opinion also required the lawyer to protect client confidences and secrets from disclosure by agency employees (Rule 1.6(c)); to be responsible for the acts of the lawyer's own lay employees and not let them engage in conduct that would violate the rules if done by a lawyer (Rules 8.4(a), 5.3, and 5.5(b)); to sign legal documents personally in completed form; not to make signatures or stationery available to lay persons outside the lawyer's exclusive employ; and not to aid a debt collection agency in violating Minnesota Statutes section 332.37 or other debt-collection laws.

Currency note

The Board flagged this opinion as Repealed effective October 25, 2002; it is retained here for historical research only.

This opinion was issued in 1977, before the Minnesota Supreme Court's adoption of the 2005 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 Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance.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: Could a lawyer who ran a debt collection agency identify as a lawyer on the agency's signage?

A: No. The opinion stated such a lawyer could not identify as a lawyer on the agency's building, office, or door signs, and could not share the agency's telephone number.

Q: Could a lawyer share letterhead, phone, or office with a debt collection agency?

A: It depended on the relationship. A lawyer merely doing legal work for an agency could not share its phone, address, or letterhead, while a lawyer employed as the agency's in-house counsel could, subject to additional conditions.

Q: Could the lawyer let agency staff use the lawyer's signature on collection letters?

A: No. The opinion prohibited delivering rubber-stamp, reproduced, mechanized, or other facsimile signatures, or the lawyer's stationery, to lay persons outside the lawyer's exclusive employ for use on demand letters or pleadings.

Q: Could a lawyer help an agency that was breaking debt-collection law?

A: No. The opinion stated a lawyer could not aid, abet, or assist a debt collection agency in violating Minnesota Statutes section 332.37 or other state or federal debt-collection laws.

Background and rules framework

The opinion drew on several Minnesota Rules of Professional Conduct: Rule 1.6 on confidentiality, Rule 5.3 on responsibilities regarding non-lawyer assistance, Rule 5.5 on the unauthorized practice of law, Rules 7.1 through 7.5 on communications and advertising, and Rule 8.4 on misconduct. It also referenced Minnesota Statutes section 332.37 on prohibited debt-collection practices. The opinion was adopted in 1977, amended in 1987, and repealed in 2002.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• MR 1.6 (confidentiality); MR 5.3 (non-lawyer assistance); MR 5.5 (unauthorized practice)
• MR 7.1 through 7.5 (communications and advertising); MR 8.4 (misconduct)
• Minnesota RPC 1.6(c), 5.3, 5.5(b), 7.1 through 7.5, 8.4(a), and 8.4(d)

Statutes:

• Minnesota Statutes section 332.37 (prohibited practices of debt collection agencies)

See also

• ABA Ethics Op. 469: Lawyers and Debt Collection Companies
• ABA Ethics Op. 506: Responsibilities Regarding Non-Lawyer Assistants

Source

• Landing page: https://lprb.mncourts.gov/lawyers-professional-responsibility-board-opinions/
• Original PDF: https://lprb.mncourts.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/Opinion-10_compressed.pdf

Original opinion text

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

LAWYERS PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY BOARD
Repealed: October 25, 2002
OPINION NO. 10
DEBT COLLECTION PROCEDURES
In order to prevent the possibility of misleading the public regarding its dealings with attorneys, it is
imperative that the activities of attorneys be separate from - and be perceived by the public to be
separate from - the activities of debt collection agencies. The blurring of the distinction between the
actions of a lawyer seeking to collect on a claim for a client and the actions of a debt collection agency
seeking to collect an account for a creditor may lead to abuses of debtors and adversely reflect upon the
legal profession.
To prevent the possibility of (a) misleading the public, or (b) abusing debtors, violations of the following
guidelines by attorneys in connection with debt collection work may constitute grounds for discipline:
1. If an attorney is engaged both in the practice of law and in the debt collection agency business:
(a) The attorney shall not identify himself/herself as a lawyer in, or on, any building office sign,
building tenants' directory, office sign or door sign of the debt collection agency.
(b) The attorney shall not have, or use, the same telephone number as that used by a debt
collection agency.
(c) The attorney may perform legal services for the debt collection agency but in doing so shall
use separate letterhead and shall not utilize the debt collection agency letterhead.
(d) All advertising or solicitation for business by the debt collection agency which identifies the
attorney as a lawyer shall be subject to Rules 7.1 through 7.5, Minnesota Rules of Professional
Conduct (MRPC).
2. If an attorney represents or performs legal work for a debt collection agency:
(a) The attorney shall not have, or use, the same telephone number as that used by a debt
collection agency.
(b) The attorney shall not use the same office address as that used by a debt collection agency.
(c) The attorney shall not use the same letterhead as that used by the collection agency.
3. If an attorney is employed by a debt collection agency as in-house counsel:
(a) The attorney may use the same telephone number used by the debt collection agency.
(b) The attorney may use the same office address used by the debt collection agency.
(c) The attorney may use the same letterhead used by the debt collection agency, provided
however, that all communications on agency letterhead which includes the attorney's name
and/or title of in-house counsel, general counsel, or counsel for the debt collection agency shall
be subject to the requirements set forth in paragraphs 4 through 9 of this opinion.
4. An attorney who represents, or performs legal work for, a debt collection agency shall exercise
reasonable care to insure that confidences and secrets of the attorneys' clients are not disclosed by
employees of the debt collection agency to any person not authorized by the client to receive such

information. Rule 1.6(c), MRPC.
5. An attorney who represents, or performs legal work for, a debt collection agency shall be responsible
for all acts of the attorney's own lay employees, and the attorney may not permit, expressly, by
implication or by non-action, lay employees to engage in conduct which, if engaged in by an attorney,
would be in violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct. Rule 8.4(a), Rule 5.3, and Rule 5.5(b),
MRPC.
6. Form letters, pleadings, or other legal documents shall be signed by an attorney who represents or
performs legal work for a debt collection agency in the completed form in which they are to be sent,
served or delivered.
7. Except for purposes of effecting service of legal process according to law, no attorney shall permit
any correspondence, pleadings, garnishment summonses, executions, releases, or other documents
which bear his or her signature (or a facsimile thereof) to be used, or mailed, by persons who are not in
the exclusive employ of the attorney's law office.
8. An attorney who represents, or performs legal work for, a debt collection agency shall not deliver to,
or otherwise make available to, lay persons who are not in the exclusive employ of the attorney's law
office
(a) Rubber stamp signatures;
(b) Reproduced signatures;
(c) Mechanized signatures;
(d) Other facsimile signatures of the attorney;
(e) Lawyer's stationery; or
(f) In the case of in-house counsel, debt collection agency letterhead bearing the attorney's name
and/or title;
for purposes of allowing use of the same on demand letters, original pleadings, or on any other
documents used in debt collection. Rule 8.4(d); Rule 5.5(b), MRPC.
9. An attorney shall not aid, abet or assist any debt collection agency in the violation of the provisions of
Minnesota Statutes § 332.37, prescribing prohibited practices of debt collection agencies. Similarly, an
attorney shall not aid, abet or assist a debt collection agency in the violation of any other state or federal
laws, rules or regulations governing debt collection agency practices.
Adopted: June 22, 1977.
Amended: December 4, 1987.
Repealed: October 25, 2002.