MTBAR April 9, 1990

Can a lawyer ethically sell 'do it yourself' divorce kits to the public?

Short answer: No. The opinion concluded that selling self-help divorce kits is inconsistent with the competence duty of Rule 1.1, because the buyer is likely to assume the kit meets their needs without further advice, while the selling lawyer cannot monitor the client's particular circumstances.

Apply this to your situation

This page answers the general question as of 1990. 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 1990
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 Not binding precedent.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 committee was asked whether attorney sales of "do it yourself" divorce kits are ethical. It answered no.

The committee applied Rule 1.1, which requires a lawyer to provide competent representation, meaning the legal knowledge, skill, thoroughness, and preparation reasonably necessary for the representation. It reasoned that selling such kits carries an implicit assumption the purchaser will handle the matter without much, if any, additional legal advice. The concern is that a client who buys the kit from an attorney will assume it meets their needs without further consultation, raising a real possibility of harm if the kit fails to address particular needs that may not have been contemplated when it was sold. The selling attorney is left having made the kit available without being able to monitor the client's peculiar needs. The committee concluded that providing legal services cannot be equated to selling a product, because such services often must be tailored to each client's unique circumstances.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1990, before the State Bar of Montana's adoption of the 2004 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: Why does selling a divorce kit raise a competence problem?

A: The opinion reasons that the buyer is likely to assume the kit meets their needs without further advice, while the selling lawyer cannot monitor the client's particular circumstances, in tension with the competence duty of Rule 1.1.

Q: Can legal services be sold like a product?

A: The opinion concludes they cannot, because legal services often must be tailored to the unique needs of each client rather than packaged as a one-size product.

Background and rules framework

The opinion interprets Montana Rule of Professional Conduct 1.1 (Competence; Model Rule 1.1), which requires the legal knowledge, skill, thoroughness, and preparation reasonably necessary for the representation.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

  • Mont. R. Prof. Cond. 1.1 (competence) / Model Rule 1.1

See also

Source

Original opinion text

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

ETHICS OPINION
QUESTION PRESENTED: Are attorney sales of "do it yourself" divorce kits ethical?

ANSWER: No.

ANALYSIS: Model Rule 1.1 provides:

A lawyer shall provide competent representation to a client. Competent representation requires the legal knowledge, skill, thoroughness and preparation reasonably necessary for the representation.

Implicit in the sale of these kits is the assumption that the purchaser/client will be able to handle the matter without much, if any additional legal advice.

The concern is that the client, having purchased the kit from an attorney, will assume that it meets his needs without further consultation with an attorney. This presents the very real possibility that the client will suffer harm as a result of failure of the kit to meet particular needs (which may not have even been contemplated when the kit was sold).

The seller/attorney is placed in the position of having made such a kit available to the purchaser/client without being able to monitor the peculiar needs of the client. The providing of legal services cannot be equated to the sale of a product. Such services often must be tailored to the unique needs of each client.

                         THIS OPINION IS ADVISORY ONLY

Get today's answer for your situation

You just read a 1990 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.