Can a lawyer sign blank form collection letters for a client to fill in and send out without the lawyer's supervision?

Plain-English summary

The opinion (rendered November 15, 1974, and amended April 6, 2013) addressed a proposal in which an attorney would prepare a demand letter for a client to send to customers in arrears. The letter would carry the attorney's signature and be mailed in the attorney's envelope, but the customer's name and the amount due would be left blank, to be filled in by the client and mailed from the client's place of business in the client's sole discretion and without further knowledge or supervision by the attorney.

The opinion concluded that performing such a service would be improper. It noted that under the proposal the attorney relinquished control of the demand letters, leaving that control solely in the discretion of the client.

A 1980 clarification addressed a bank that sends attorney-signed letters directing a customer in default to contact a member of the bank's collection department, a layman. The Committee concluded that this practice does not violate Opinion 25, because the prohibited procedure is the one in which the attorney signs letters in blank and leaves it to the client to fill in and send them; directing the delinquent customer to contact a layman is not itself prohibited by the Rules.

In practice

Under this opinion, a Mississippi lawyer may not hand a client a stock of pre-signed, blank demand letters for the client to complete and mail at will, because the opinion treats that arrangement as the lawyer giving up control over the lawyer's own signed communications. The 1980 clarification holds that the narrower practice it described, a bank routing a defaulting customer to a layman in its collection department, falls outside what Opinion 25 prohibits.

Common questions

Q: Can a Mississippi lawyer give a client pre-signed blank demand letters to fill in and send?

A: No. The opinion concluded that it is improper for an attorney to sign demand letters in blank and let the client fill in the name and amount and mail them, because the attorney relinquishes control of the letters.

Q: What made the arrangement improper?

A: Per the opinion, the attorney relinquished control of the demand letters, leaving that control solely in the discretion of the client.

Q: Does a bank directing a customer to contact a layman in its collection department violate the opinion?

A: No. The 1980 clarification concluded that practice does not violate Opinion 25, because it does not involve the attorney signing letters in blank for the client to complete and send.

Citations and references

Other opinions cited:

• Clarification of Ethics Opinion No. 25 (rendered January 22, 1980).

See also

• ABA Ethics Op. 506: Responsibilities Regarding Nonlawyer Assistants
• ABA Ethics Op. 469: Prosecutors and Debt-Collection Companies

Source

• Landing page: https://www.msbar.org/ethics-discipline/ethics-opinions/formal-opinions/25/
• Original PDF: https://www.msbar.org/media/1068/et_op_25-amended.pdf

Original opinion text

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

ETHICS OPINION NO. 25

OF THE MISSISSIPPI BAR

RENDERED November 15, 1974

AMENDED April 06, 2013

AIDING THE UNAUTHORIZED PRACTICE OF LAW - It is improper for an attorney to allow a client to use form collection letters prepared and signed by the attorney.

The opinion of this Committee has been sought in connection with requests made by clients to an attorney that he prepare a "demand letter", to be sent to client's customers who are in arrears on their accounts. It is proposed that such a letter would carry the signature of the attorney and be mailed in one of the attorney's envelopes. The attorney would be compensated on a monthly basis for this service.

The content of the proposed letter would leave blank the customer's name and amount due, and would be mailed from the client's place of business. The proposed letter would leave the control of the attorney and be delivered to his client in the following form:

Re: Account Balance: ____

Dear _____:

(Name of client) has requested that we contact you concerning your account with them. This account is delinquent in the amount of $_ but, as yet, has not been assigned to us for legal action. However, if this account is not paid in full or satisfactory arrangements made with ______ (Name of client) within five (5) days from the date of this letter, I am to proceed with legal action which will add attorney fees and court costs to the balance already owing. I would strongly suggest that you give this matter your immediate attention.

Sincerely yours,

John Doe,
Attorney at Law

These form letters would then be completed by the client and distributed by him to customers, all in the sole discretion of client and without further knowledge or supervision by the attorney.

It is the opinion of this Committee that the performance of such service by an attorney would be improper.

CLARIFICATION OF ETHICS OPINION NUMBER 25
OF THE MISSISSIPPI BAR
RENDERED JANUARY 22, 1980

AIDING THE UNAUTHORIZED PRACTICE OF LAW - Is it improper for an attorney to allow a client to use form collection letters prepared and signed by the attorney.

The Ethics Committee of the Mississippi Bar has been asked to render an opinion concerning the clarification of Opinion No. 25. A bank sends out attorney letters over the signature of its staff attorneys requiring the customer in default to contact a member of the collection department, a layman.

Does the practice above described violate Opinion No. 25 of the Ethics Committee of the Mississippi Bar approved by the Board of Bar Commissioners on November 15, 1974?

No. The procedure prohibited by Opinion 25 envisions that the attorney sign a supply of demand letters in blank, leaving it to the client to fill in the blanks and send the demand to the delinquent customer. Opinion 25 noted that the attorney relinquished control of the demand letters leaving that control solely in the discretion of the client. No such action is contemplated by the bank requesting clarification. The fact that the delinquent customer is directed to contact a layman is not prohibited by the Rules.