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. Ask about yours and see what the current Minnesota Rules of Professional Conduct say for your facts, 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The Board flagged this opinion as Repealed effective January 7, 1983; it is retained here for historical research only.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 Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance.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 It was adopted in 1974, amended in 1979, and repealed in 1983.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
What do the rules say today, for your facts?
This opinion is from 1974. Ezel checks the current Minnesota Rules of Professional Conduct against your situation and cites the rules it relies on.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace