Can a lawyer who is also a licensed clinical social worker practice law through the same LLC she set up for her social work practice?

Plain-English summary

The Committee considered whether a lawyer who is also a licensed clinical social worker (LCSW) may practice law under the same limited liability company she established for her social work practice. The answer was yes, with conditions: the attorney may practice law and operate as an LCSW under one LLC provided she does not represent the same clients in both capacities, and she must evaluate potential conflicts of interest before undertaking any representation in either capacity. The opinion limited itself to an LLC owned or operated by an attorney, and noted that anyone employed by such an LLC is bound by the attorney's confidentiality rules.

Most of the analysis concerns multidisciplinary practice (MDP) and the differing professional obligations of lawyers and social workers. The opinion identifies the most serious potential conflict as confidentiality. The attorney's duty under NRPC 1.6(a) is broader than the social worker's: the NASW Code of Ethics permits social workers to disclose for "compelling professional reasons" and recognizes that obligations to the larger society may on limited occasions supersede the loyalty owed clients. Because the rules differ on preserving client confidences, and citing the ABA Commission on Multidisciplinary Practice, the Committee concluded that a lawyer who is also a social worker must make reasonable efforts to ensure the client understands in which capacity she is representing them, that the lawyer and the nonlawyer professional may have different disclosure obligations, and that courts may treat the client's communications differently; the client must consent to that scope of representation.

The opinion identifies a second, sharper conflict in mandatory reporting of child abuse. Under NRS 432B.220, clinical social workers are mandatory reporters whenever they have reasonable cause to suspect abuse, but attorneys are exempted from that requirement when the attorney has acquired the knowledge from a client who is or may be accused of the abuse or neglect. Because a single person serving as both attorney and social worker for the same client could face directly opposing reporting obligations, the Committee concluded the same person should not act as both attorney and social worker for the same client. (The opinion notes it previously discussed this reporting conflict in Formal Opinion No. 30.) Its overall conclusion: no current prohibition prevents an attorney from also practicing as an LCSW, but because of the potential for conflict and the different professional obligations, the attorney should not act as a social worker to the same client, and in any MDP should ensure the client understands and has consented to the capacity in which she is acting.

In practice

The opinion holds that, under the Nevada rules, one person may carry on both an attorney practice and an LCSW practice under a single attorney-owned LLC, but should not serve the same client in both roles, given the broader attorney confidentiality duty under NRPC 1.6 and the conflicting child-abuse reporting duties under NRS 432B.220. Where a multidisciplinary practice serves clients, the lawyer must ensure each client understands which hat she is wearing and consents to that scope, and employees of the LLC are bound by the attorney's confidentiality rules.

Common questions

Q: Can a lawyer run a law practice and a social-work practice out of the same company?

A: Yes. The opinion concluded an attorney may practice law and work as an LCSW under the same LLC, so long as she does not represent the same clients in both capacities and evaluates conflicts before each engagement.

Q: Why shouldn't the same person be both lawyer and social worker for one client?

A: The opinion points to conflicting duties: the attorney's confidentiality obligation is broader than the social worker's, and under NRS 432B.220 social workers must report suspected child abuse while attorneys are exempt when the information comes from a client who may be the accused.

Q: What must the lawyer do in a multidisciplinary practice?

A: Per the opinion, the lawyer must make reasonable efforts to ensure the client understands in which capacity she is acting, that disclosure obligations and how courts treat communications may differ, and the client must consent to that scope of representation.

Background and rules framework

The opinion interprets the confidentiality duty of NRPC 1.6, the conflict rules NRPC 1.8, and the professional-independence rule NRPC 5.4, in the multidisciplinary-practice setting, against NRS 432B.220 (mandatory child-abuse reporting) and the NASW Code of Ethics, and draws on the ABA Commission on Multidisciplinary Practice and California Formal Opinion 1999-154.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• Model Rule 1.6 / Nev. RPC 1.6 (confidentiality)
• Model Rule 1.8 / Nev. RPC 1.8 (conflicts of interest)
• Model Rule 5.4 / Nev. RPC 5.4 (professional independence of a lawyer)

Statutes:

• NRS 432B.220 (mandatory reporting of suspected child abuse)

Other opinions cited:

• State Bar of Nevada Formal Op. No. 30 (2005): conflict between mandatory reporting and confidentiality
• State Bar of California Formal Op. 1999-154

See also

• NV Ethics Op. 30: mandatory child-abuse reporting versus the duty of confidentiality
• NV Ethics Op. 52: lawyers providing lobbying and other law-related services

Source

• Landing page: https://nvbar.org/for-lawyers/ethics-discipline/ethics-opinions/
• Original PDF: https://nvbar.org/wp-content/uploads/Ethics_Op_49.pdf