Can a lawyer run a school that teaches laypeople how to file their own bankruptcy petitions pro se?
Apply this to your situation
This page answers the general question as of 1976. Ezel answers yours: whether it's allowed on your facts, under the current New York Rules of Professional Conduct, with citations.
Plain-English summary
The committee considered whether an attorney could operate, on his own and without outside sponsorship, a school giving laymen an introduction to bankruptcy law and instruction on filling out bankruptcy petitions and schedules so they could proceed pro se.
It measured the proposal against the guidelines of N.Y. State 283 (1972), which permit lawyer participation in lay-education programs only if the program is genuinely educational in purpose (not run to publicize or make money for the sponsoring lawyers), is sponsored by a bar association, school, or other responsible organization, and does not let attorneys answer laymen's questions about their specific individual problems (citing ABA Inf. 840 (1965)). The committee found the proposed school outside those limits. Sponsorship was a central concern: while lawyers may be compensated for participating in educational programs, opening a school as lawyers acting independently of any responsible sponsoring organization went too far. It "smacks of an effort to avoid the present strictures against advertising" and to avoid the attorney's professional responsibility for individual counseling (DR 2-102, EC 2-4, DR 6-102).
The committee added that, given the complexity of bankruptcy law, it seemed improbable that individual counseling could be avoided entirely, and unlikely that the lawyers could hide that attorneys ran the school (which would be one of its main attractions). Prohibiting the operators from accepting employment from students who later sought advice would not cure these problems (DR 2-104). While recognizing lawyers' obligations to educate the public to recognize legal problems and to participate in education about the legal system, the committee stressed that such activities must be motivated by a desire to benefit the public rather than to obtain publicity or employment (EC 2-1, EC 2-2), and concluded the proposed school would be improper.
Currency note
This opinion was issued in 1976, before New York replaced the Code of Professional Responsibility with the Rules of Professional Conduct in 2009, and before the U.S. Supreme Court's commercial-speech decisions (beginning with Bates v. State Bar of Arizona, 1977) reshaped lawyer advertising. Lawyer advertising and solicitation are now governed by Rules 7.1, 7.2, and 7.3. Subsequent rule amendments and decisions have substantially changed this area. 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 run a pro se bankruptcy school for laypeople in 1976?
A: Under this opinion, no, not as an independent venture. The committee held a school run by lawyers without a responsible sponsoring organization fell outside the permissible limits for lay-education programs.
Q: What made it improper rather than legitimate public education?
A: Per the opinion, the lack of responsible sponsorship and the pro se purpose suggested an effort to evade the advertising restrictions and the lawyer's responsibility for individual counseling (DR 2-102, EC 2-4, DR 6-102).
Q: What kind of lay-education program would have been allowed?
A: The committee, citing N.Y. State 283 (1972), described a program that is genuinely educational in purpose, sponsored by a bar association, school, or other responsible organization, and does not answer participants' individual legal questions.
Background and rules framework
The opinion applies the then-current New York Code's advertising and education provisions, EC 2-1, EC 2-2, EC 2-4, DR 2-102 (professional notices), DR 2-104 (recommending one's own employment), and DR 6-102, read against the lay-education guidelines of N.Y. State 283 (1972). It predates Bates v. State Bar of Arizona (1977) and the modern Model Rule advertising framework (Rules 7.1, 7.2, 7.3).
Citations and references
Rules of Professional Conduct:
- MR 7.1 (communications about a lawyer's services)
- MR 7.2 (advertising)
- MR 7.3 (solicitation of clients)
- NY EC 2-1, EC 2-2, EC 2-4; DR 2-102; DR 2-104; DR 6-102
Other opinions cited:
- N.Y. State 283 (1972): guidelines for lawyer participation in lay-education programs
- ABA Inf. 840 (1965); ABA Inf. 1021 (1968): lawyer participation in and compensation for educational programs
See also
- NY State Bar Op. 449: A notice inviting other attorneys with similar clients
- NY State Bar Op. 452: A bar association's consumer legal directory
- NY State Bar Op. 458: A law firm newsletter prepared by others
Source
- Landing page: https://nysba.org/opinion-442/
Get today's answer for your situation
You just read a 1976 opinion on this question. Ezel checks the current New York Rules of Professional Conduct and answers your specific situation, with citations.
Opens in Ezel Pro. Every answer cites the rules it relies on.