MNLPRB January 26, 2006

How may a Minnesota law firm identify and use paralegals and other non-lawyer staff?

Short answer: The opinion allows firms to list clearly identified paralegals on letterhead, cards, signs, and directories and to have them sign firm correspondence at an attorney's direction, while non-lawyers must be supervised by a responsible attorney and non-admitted persons may not be named on pleadings except as the Supreme Court permits.

Apply this to your situation

This page answers the general question as of 2006. Ezel answers yours: whether it's allowed on your facts, under the current rules of professional conduct in your state, with citations.

Currency note: this opinion is from 2006
Subsequent statutory amendments, court decisions, or later opinions or rule amendments may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current legal advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or remedy mentioned here.
Disclaimer: Advisory only. Not binding precedent.
About this page: The plain-English summary, reader guidance, and Q&A below were written by Ezel based on the official ethics opinion. The original opinion (linked on this page as a PDF) is the authoritative source for any reliance.
View original ethics opinion (PDF)

Plain-English summary

The opinion sets out guidelines for how a Minnesota law office may use and identify non-lawyer staff. It begins with a limit: except to the extent the Supreme Court of Minnesota permits (for example, the Student Practice Rules), neither law students nor any other person not duly admitted to the practice of law may be named on pleadings under any identification.

The opinion is more permissive about how firms may identify paralegals and other paralegal employees. They may be listed on professional cards, announcement cards, office signs, letterheads, telephone directory listings, law lists, and similar professional notices, so long as the paralegals are clearly identified as such and no false, fraudulent, misleading, or deceptive statements are made about their legal status, authority, or relationship to the firm. They may use business cards that identify them as paralegals and carry the firm's name and address.

The opinion also states that such an identified paralegal may sign correspondence on behalf of the firm, provided he or she does so at the direction of an attorney-employer. It closes by stating that non-lawyers must be supervised by an attorney who is responsible for their work, citing Rules 5.3 and 5.5 of the Minnesota Rules of Professional Conduct.

In practice

Under this opinion, a Minnesota firm may identify a paralegal on its letterhead, cards, signs, and directory listings as long as the paralegal is clearly labeled as a paralegal and nothing misleads about the paralegal's status or authority. The opinion permits an identified paralegal to sign firm correspondence when directed to do so by an attorney-employer. The opinion states that non-lawyers must be supervised by a responsible attorney, and that persons not admitted to practice may not be named on pleadings except as the Supreme Court permits.

Common questions

Q: Can a paralegal be listed on a Minnesota firm's letterhead?

A: Yes. The opinion permits listing paralegals on letterhead, cards, signs, and directories so long as they are clearly identified as paralegals and no misleading claims are made about their status or authority.

Q: Can a paralegal sign correspondence on the firm's behalf?

A: Yes, provided the paralegal is identified as such and signs at the direction of an attorney-employer.

Q: Can a law student or other non-lawyer be named on pleadings?

A: No, except to the extent the Minnesota Supreme Court permits, such as under the Student Practice Rules.

Q: Who is responsible for the work of non-lawyer staff?

A: The opinion states non-lawyers must be supervised by an attorney who is responsible for their work, citing Rules 5.3 and 5.5.

Background and rules framework

The opinion applies Rule 5.3 of the Minnesota Rules of Professional Conduct (the analog of Model Rule 5.3 on responsibilities regarding non-lawyer assistance) and Rule 5.5 (the analog of Model Rule 5.5 on the unauthorized practice of law). It frames how a firm may hold out paralegals and other non-lawyer staff without creating a misleading impression of their status or allowing unauthorized practice, and ties the firm's use of such staff to attorney supervision. It was adopted in 1974 and last amended in January 2006.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

  • MR 5.3 (responsibilities regarding non-lawyer assistance)
  • MR 5.5 (unauthorized practice of law)
  • Minnesota RPC 5.3 and 5.5 (supervision of non-lawyers; unauthorized practice)

See also

Source

Original opinion text

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

LAWYERS PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY BOARD
OPINION NO. 8
ATTORNEYS' GUIDELINES FOR
LAW OFFICE SERVICES BY NON-LAWYERS
Except to the extent permitted by the Supreme Court of the State of Minnesota, (e.g., Student
Practice Rules) neither law students nor any other person not duly admitted to the practice of law
shall be named on pleadings under any identification.
Legal assistants, or other paralegal employees, may be listed on professional cards, professional
announcement cards, office signs, letterheads, telephone directory listings, law lists, legal
directory listings, or similar professional notices or devices, so long as the paralegals are clearly
identified as such, and so long as no false, fraudulent, misleading, or deceptive statements or
claims are made concerning said paralegals, their legal status and authority, or their relationships
to the firms by which they are employed. Paralegals may use business cards so identifying
themselves, which cards carry the law firm's name and address.
Such a paralegal, so identified, may sign correspondence on behalf of the law firm, provided he
or she does so by direction of an attorney-employer.
Non-lawyers must be supervised by an attorney who is responsible for their work. See, Rules 5.3
and 5.5 and Comments, Minnesota Rules of Professional Conduct.
Adopted: June 26, 1974.
Amended: June 18, 1980;
December 4, 1987; and
January 26, 2006.

Get today's answer for your situation

You just read a 2006 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.