Is a Minnesota lawyer personally responsible for paying experts the lawyer hires for a client?
Apply this to your situation
This page answers the general question as of 1974. Ezel answers yours: whether it's allowed on your facts, under the current rules of professional conduct in your state, with citations.
Plain-English summary
The opinion addressed a lawyer's financial responsibility for services the lawyer orders from third parties for a client. It concluded that it was professional misconduct for an attorney to deny responsibility for the payment of compensation for services rendered by doctors, engineers, accountants, other attorneys, or other persons, if the attorney had ordered or requested the services.
The opinion gave the lawyer a way to avoid that responsibility: an express written statement, made to the provider at the time of the order or request, that the lawyer would not be responsible for payment.
Currency note
The Board flagged this opinion as Repealed effective January 7, 1983; it is retained here for historical research only.
This opinion was issued in 1974, 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 Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance.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: Was a lawyer responsible for paying experts the lawyer hired for a client?
A: Yes. The opinion concluded it was misconduct for a lawyer to deny responsibility for payment of services rendered by doctors, engineers, accountants, other attorneys, or others that the lawyer had ordered or requested.
Q: How could the lawyer avoid that responsibility?
A: By giving the provider an express written statement, at the time of the order or request, that the lawyer would not be responsible for payment.
Background and rules framework
The opinion addressed a lawyer's obligations to third-party service providers retained on a client's behalf. It was adopted in 1974, amended in 1979, and repealed in 1983. The opinion did not cite a numbered Rule of Professional Conduct.
Citations and references
Rules of Professional Conduct:
- The opinion cites no Rule of Professional Conduct by number.
See also
No sibling opinions yet indexed.
Source
- Landing page: https://lprb.mncourts.gov/lawyers-professional-responsibility-board-opinions/
- Original PDF: https://lprb.mncourts.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/Opinion-7_compressed.pdf
Original opinion text
Reproduced from the official source for research purposes. The linked source is authoritative.
LAWYERS PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY BOARD
Repealed: January 7, 1983
OPINION NO. 7
INDEBTEDNESS INCURRED FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
ON BEHALF OF CLIENTS
It is professional misconduct for an attorney to deny responsibility for the payment of
compensation for services rendered by doctors, engineers, accountants, or other attorneys or
other persons, if the attorney has ordered or requested the services without informing the
provider of the service, by express written statement at the time of the order or request, that he
will not be responsible for payment.
Adopted: 1974
Amended: October 26, 1979
Repealed: January 7, 1983
Get today's answer for your situation
You just read a 1974 opinion on this question. Ezel checks the current rules of professional conduct in your state and answers your specific situation, with citations.
Opens in Ezel Pro. Every answer cites the rules it relies on.