Can a lawyer let a client send debt-collection letters on the lawyer's letterhead, where a nonlawyer the lawyer hired prepares the letters and the client mails and handles the replies?

Plain-English summary

A lawyer described a high-volume small-debt collection arrangement. The client would submit the list of accounts directly to a person the lawyer retained as an "independent contractor," who would type headings on form letters containing the usual collection language. The letters would go out on the lawyer's stationery, but were returned to the client for mailing on the client's own equipment. The "reply to" address was not the lawyer's, but an office adjoining the client's business at a different street number, and the client's staff opened and handled the replies, payments, and clarification requests. No litigation was anticipated, though the letters warned that nonpayment would be referred to an attorney in the debtor's jurisdiction.

The Committee held that a lawyer may not send simulated court papers in demands from the debtor, and may not permit his client to send collection letters in the lawyer's name or on his stationery. It relied on ABA Committee on Professional Ethics and Grievances Opinion 253 (1943), where a lawyer asked whether he could permit a client to send collection letters on the lawyer's stationery and apparently over his signature to delinquent customers. Citing Canon 15 and its earlier Opinion 178 (1938), the ABA committee held that it would be unethical for a lawyer to permit a client to send collection letters on his stationery.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1973, before New Jersey's adoption of the 2004 revisions to the Rules of Professional Conduct, and predates the 1984 replacement of the Disciplinary Rules by the RPCs. The concern that a lawyer not lend his name or stationery to a client's debt-collection campaign is now addressed under RPC 5.5 (assisting unauthorized practice) and RPC 8.4 (conduct involving misrepresentation). Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance.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: Can a client send collection letters on its lawyer's letterhead?

A: No. The opinion concluded a lawyer may not permit a client to send collection letters in the lawyer's name or on the lawyer's stationery.

Q: Does it matter that a nonlawyer prepared the letters and the client mailed them?

A: The opinion held the practice improper regardless; the objection is to the client sending letters that carry the lawyer's name and stationery, not to who physically typed or mailed them.

Q: What older authority did the Committee rely on?

A: ABA Opinion 253 (1943), applying Canon 15 and ABA Opinion 178 (1938), which held it unethical for a lawyer to permit a client to send collection letters on the lawyer's stationery.

Background and rules framework

The opinion treated the arrangement as the lawyer lending his name and stationery to a debt-collection operation run by the client, a practice the bar had long condemned as both misleading to debtors and a misuse of the lawyer's office. In current New Jersey terms the concerns map to RPC 5.5 and RPC 8.4.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• Canon 15 (Canons of Professional Ethics), as applied in 1973; concerns now under MR 5.5 / 8.4 and NJ RPC 5.5 / 8.4

Other opinions cited:

• ABA Committee on Professional Ethics and Grievances Opinion 253 (1943): unethical to permit a client to send collection letters on the lawyer's stationery
• ABA Opinion 178 (1938): cited within Opinion 253

See also

• NJ ACPE Op. 506: Lending a Lawyer's Name and Stationery for a Client's Collection Letters
• NJ ACPE Op. 595: A Collection Letter Threatening a Criminal Complaint
• NJ ACPE Op. 338: Engagement by a Collection Agency Suing Debtors

Source

• Full text (Justia mirror): https://law.justia.com/cases/new-jersey/advisory-committee-on-professional-ethics/2004/acp259-1.html
• Issuing authority: New Jersey Supreme Court Advisory Committee on Professional Ethics, via the NJ Courts Supreme Court Committees page

Original opinion text

Reproduced from a full-text mirror of the official opinion for research purposes. The linked official source controls.

96 N.J.L.J. 754, June 21, 1973

OPINION 259

Collection Letters Client's Use of Lawyer's Stationery

An attorney has been requested by a client to collect overdue accounts, in volume, consisting of small amounts, less than $25. The client will submit directly, to an individual retained by the attorney as an "independent contractor," the list of accounts to be collected. This so called "independent contractor" is to type headings on four different types of form letters which will contain the usual collection language. The debtors are located throughout the United States. The stationery to be used is that of the inquiring attorney. After the form letters are prepared by the "independent contractor" they are to be returned to the client for mailing because the client has sophisticated mailing equipment. There is a "reply to" address which is not that of the attorney, but rather the address of an office adjoining the client's business address with a street number different from that of the client. The replies are opened and reviewed by the client's staff. Payments and replies asking for clarification of the account are handled by the client. No litigation is anticipated, but the form letters, however, indicate that if the debt is not paid, suit will be commenced by a referral to an attorney in the debtor's jurisdiction.

A lawyer may not send simulated court papers in demands from the debtor, or permit his client to send collection letters in the lawyer's name, or on his stationery. In A.B.A. Committee on Professional Ethics and Grievances, Opinion 253 (1943), a local bar association asked if it would be ethical for an attorney to permit a client to send collection letters on the stationery of the attorney, and apparently over his signature, to customers whose accounts had become delinquent. The Committee cited Canons of Professional Ethics, Canon 15 and its former Opinion 178 (1938), and held that it would be unethical for a lawyer to permit a client to send collection letters on his stationery. See Wise, Legal Ethics 224 (1970); Digest of Bar Association Ethics Opinions (1970) 3288, 3390 and 4381; 1970 Supplement to the Digest of Bar Association Ethics Opinions 5287, 5806 and 6012.