Can a lawyer run a side business placing temporary secretaries and clerks in other law offices?
Apply this to your situation
This page answers the general question as of 1987. Ezel answers yours: whether it's allowed on your facts, under the current rules of professional conduct in your state, with citations.
Plain-English summary
A practicing lawyer asked whether he could operate a collateral business placing temporary secretarial and clerical help in other law offices. The Committee concluded he should not do so unless he adopts safeguards: not placing temporary help in offices where he has matters pending, ensuring the employees understand they must preserve client confidences and avoid working on matters they have worked on for him or in other offices, and telling the lawyers who use the service that its owner/operator is an active lawyer.
The opinion framed the problem as the threat that lay employees moving from office to office pose to client confidences. SCR 156(1) bars a lawyer from revealing information relating to a representation; although it does not by its terms apply to nonlawyer assistants, SCR 187 imposes a duty on lawyers to supervise nonlawyer employees and to ensure their conduct is compatible with the lawyer's obligations, and SCR 203(1) makes it misconduct to violate the rules through the acts of another. Reading these together, the Committee said a lawyer who hires another lawyer's lay employee must take reasonable steps to ensure the employee honors the other lawyer's confidentiality duties, and there is nothing per se improper in the staffing business so long as the lawyer does not place temps against whom he has adversary matters pending and instructs employees on confidentiality.
The Committee found the real problem to be the risk of placing temporary help in offices against which the operating lawyer has adverse matters pending. It distinguished cases about hiring a departing employee (where consent, screening, or a "Chinese Wall" may make the arrangement tolerable) from this situation, where employees work simultaneously for more than one office on short notice. Citing New York and Oregon opinions that it is improper to employ a part-time secretary who also works at an adverse firm, the opinion reasoned that the duty of confidentiality is too important to risk through divided loyalties, and that short-term placements do not allow time to consult clients or erect screens. The operating lawyer should therefore keep careful records of adverse matters and decline placements in those offices, disclose that he is a lawyer, and (with the using lawyers) admonish temporary employees not to disclose confidences or work on files about which they have pre-existing confidential knowledge.
Currency note
This opinion was issued in 1987, before Nevada's 2006 adoption of the current Nevada Rules of Professional Conduct (the renumbered Rules 1.0 et seq. that replaced the former Supreme Court Rules) and the related Ethics 2000-based revisions. The duties discussed are now in Rule 1.6 (confidentiality), Rule 5.3 (responsibilities regarding nonlawyer assistants), and Rule 8.4 (misconduct). 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: Is a lawyer-owned temp staffing business for law offices allowed at all?
A: Per the opinion, there is nothing per se improper in it, but the lawyer must adopt safeguards to protect client confidences and avoid conflicts before operating it.
Q: What is the main risk the opinion identified?
A: The opinion concluded the real problem is placing temporary help in offices against which the operating lawyer has adverse matters pending, given the risk of inadvertent or intentional disclosure of confidences.
Q: What must the lawyer do to comply?
A: The opinion directed the lawyer to keep records of adverse matters and decline placements in those offices, instruct employees on confidentiality and to avoid matters they have worked on, and tell using lawyers that the owner is an active lawyer.
Background and rules framework
The opinion interprets the Nevada confidentiality and supervision rules then in force: SCR 156 (now Rule 1.6, confidentiality of information), SCR 187 (now Rule 5.3, responsibilities regarding nonlawyer assistants), and SCR 203(1) (now Rule 8.4, misconduct, including violating the rules through the acts of another). The analysis turns on the risk that lay employees moving among offices will compromise client confidences.
Citations and references
Rules of Professional Conduct:
- Model Rule 1.6 / former Nev. SCR 156 (confidentiality of information)
- Model Rule 5.3 / former Nev. SCR 187 (duty to supervise nonlawyer assistants)
- Model Rule 8.4 / former Nev. SCR 203(1) (misconduct; violating the rules through another)
Other opinions cited:
- New York State Ops. 386, 422; Oregon Ops. 226, 435; Florida Ops. 86-4, 86-5; Tennessee Op. 85-F-99 (lay employees moving between offices and client confidences)
See also
Source
- Landing page: https://nvbar.org/for-lawyers/ethics-discipline/ethics-opinions/
- Original PDF: https://nvbar.org/wp-content/uploads/opinion_06.pdf
Get today's answer for your situation
You just read a 1987 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.