Can a lawyer let a client send out collection letters on the lawyer's stationery and name when the client, not the lawyer, runs the collection process?

Plain-English summary

The inquiry presented a variation on the situation addressed in Opinion 259. The Committee stated at the outset that it is not its function to determine how close to the wind an attorney may sail in lending his name to a client's collection work, because he should not do so at all, citing Opinion 259.

The proposed procedure used three form collection letters on the attorney's stationery, representing increasing pressure through the client's administrative levels: the first threatening that the "National Collection Manager" would be notified, the second stating that the National Collection Manager had received the account and might judge it uncollectible by "Mr. Doe," and the third stating the matter had been referred to the attorney for assistance in collection. All letters were to be bulk-mailed by the client with return envelopes addressed to the client, not the attorney, though the inquirer represented he would review the lists and accounts at each stage, keep records, and answer all questions, calls, and letters directly. The Committee observed that this might not happen in practice given that the return envelopes went to the client.

On the specific question, whether the client could undertake the mailings by its bulk-mail system and receive the payments, the Committee answered that these elements, taken in a vacuum, might not be objectionable. But where the effect of the entire scheme is that the attorney allows his name to be used by the client to lend "clout" to the collections, and where the judgments are exercised not by the attorney but by the "National Collection Manager," "Mr. Doe," or the client, the practice is disapproved. The Committee stated that Opinion 259 remains the guide in this area.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1982, 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 Justia mirror of this opinion does not carry an N.J.L.J. dateline, so only the year is recorded here; it sits in sequence between Opinions 505 and 507, both reported at 110 N.J.L.J. 408 (Oct. 7, 1982). 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 Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance.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: Could a lawyer let a client send collection letters on the lawyer's stationery?

A: No. The opinion concluded a lawyer should not lend his name to a client's collection work at all and disapproved the proposed scheme.

Q: What made the scheme objectionable?

A: The opinion focused on the lawyer's name being used to lend "clout" to the collections while the collection judgments were exercised by the client or its "National Collection Manager," not by the lawyer, and the payments returned to the client.

Q: Were the individual elements, like bulk mailing, themselves prohibited?

A: The opinion said those elements taken in a vacuum might not be objectionable; it was the overall effect of lending the lawyer's name to a client-run collection process that the Committee disapproved.

Background and rules framework

The opinion was decided under the principles then governing New Jersey lawyers, before the 1984 adoption of the Rules of Professional Conduct, and rested on the rule restated in Opinion 259 that a lawyer should not lend his name to a client's collection activity. In current terms the concern maps onto RPC 8.4(c) (conduct involving misrepresentation, here the misleading impression that the lawyer was exercising the judgment behind the letters) and RPC 7.1 (false or misleading communications about a lawyer's services).

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• MR 8.4(c) / NJ RPC 8.4(c) (conduct involving dishonesty or misrepresentation)
• MR 7.1 / NJ RPC 7.1 (false or misleading communications)

Other opinions cited:

• NJ ACPE Opinion 259, 96 N.J.L.J. 754 (1973) (a lawyer should not lend his name to a client's collection work; remains the guide)

See also

• NJ ACPE Op. 512: Naming an Affiliated Out-of-State Firm on Letterhead

Source

• Full text (Justia mirror): https://law.justia.com/cases/new-jersey/advisory-committee-on-professional-ethics/2004/acp506-1.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.

OPINION 506

Collection Letters Client's Use of Lawyer's Name and Stationery

Inquirer requests an opinion in a matter involving a variation of the matters discussed in Opinion 259, 96 N.J.L.J. 754 (1973).

It is not this Committee's function to determine how close to the wind an attorney may sail in lending his name to a client in its collection work. He should not do so at all. See Opinion 259.

The procedure suggested in this inquiry, for example, proposes three form collection letters on the attorney's stationery representing increasing pressure to pay rising through various administrative levels of the client. The first threatens that if the account is not paid, the "National Collection Manager will be notified;" the second that the "National Collection Manager has received the account" and threatens that unless it is paid, it may "be judged uncollectible by Mr. Doe." The final letter states that the matter has been "referred to me for the purpose of assisting them in the collection," etc.

All letters are intended to be bulk mailed by the client with return envelopes addressed, not to the attorney, but to the client. The inquirer states, however, that he will review the lists and accounts at each stage and maintain records and answer "all questions, phone calls and letters directly". We observe that this might not occur in practice since the return envelopes are addressed to the client.

The specific question, however, is - "Could the client undertake the mailings by its bulk mail system and receive back the payments?" The answer to the specific question, as a general proposition is that these elements taken in a vacuum may not be objectionable. Where, however, the effect of the entire scheme is that the attorney is allowing his name to be used by his client to lend "clout" to the collections and where the judgments are being exercised not by the attorney but by "The National Collection Manager" or "Mr. Doe" or the client, the practice is still disapproved.

Opinion 259 remains the guide in this area.