Ezel / Ethics Opinions / NYSBA
NYSBA July 2, 2008

Can a New York lawyer monitor a client's investments for potential claims for free, then handle any resulting lawsuit for a fee?

Short answer: Yes. The committee concludes a lawyer may review a client's portfolio for potential securities-fraud claims without charge, even though the lawyer may later be retained, for a fee, to litigate any claim the review uncovers.

Apply this to your situation

This page answers the general question as of 2008. Ezel answers yours: whether it's allowed on your facts, under the current New York Rules of Professional Conduct, with citations.

Currency note: this opinion is from 2008
Subsequent statutory amendments, court decisions, or later opinions or rule amendments may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current legal advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or remedy mentioned here.
Disclaimer: Advisory only. Not binding precedent.
About this page: The plain-English summary, reader guidance, and Q&A below were written by Ezel based on the official ethics opinion. The original opinion (linked on this page) is the authoritative source for any reliance.

Plain-English summary

A securities-fraud plaintiffs' firm offered to monitor the investment portfolios of its institutional and pension-fund clients at no charge, notifying a client whenever it spotted a potential claim. Once notified, the client could do nothing, hire another lawyer, or hire the monitoring firm under a separate retainer to pursue the claim. The committee was asked whether providing the monitoring service for free creates a problem, given that the firm stands to be paid if the client later pursues a claim it surfaces.

The committee concludes the arrangement is permissible. Nothing in the Code prohibits a lawyer from providing legal services without compensation, and the prospect of later paid work does not change that. The monitoring service itself creates an attorney-client relationship carrying all the usual duties, including conflicts and confidentiality obligations. On the lawyer's-own-interest conflict, the committee reads DR 5-101 not to be triggered: a lawyer's interest in being hired to pursue a claim he or she uncovers does not impair professional judgment, because it is inherent in the attorney-client relationship that a lawyer may benefit from recommending that legal services are needed.

The committee adds two practical points. Because the monitoring is itself a legal service involving professional judgment, DR 1-106 (governing lawyers who also provide nonlegal services) does not apply. And while an engagement letter for the free service would be prudent, New York's engagement-letter rules do not require one, because the lawyer is not expected to charge $3,000 or more for the monitoring. The lawyer must, however, comply with the rules prohibiting solicitation. The opinion does not address questions of substantive law.

In practice

The opinion holds, under the former Code as it stood at the time, that a free claim-monitoring service does not create a disqualifying self-interest conflict under DR 5-101 merely because the lawyer hopes to be retained, for a fee, on any claim the service uncovers. The committee frames the permission with conditions: the monitoring creates a full attorney-client relationship (so conflicts and confidentiality duties apply), and the lawyer must observe the anti-solicitation rules. Any later litigation proceeds under a separate retainer entered after the client decides to pursue the matter.

Common questions

Q: Does offering a free legal service that could lead to paid work create a conflict of interest?

A: No. The committee concludes that a lawyer's interest in being hired to pursue a claim he or she uncovers does not impair the lawyer's professional judgment under DR 5-101, because benefiting from a recommendation that legal services are needed is inherent in the attorney-client relationship.

Q: Does a free monitoring service still create an attorney-client relationship?

A: Yes. The opinion states the arrangement creates an attorney-client relationship with all the rights, responsibilities, and obligations that attach, including the duties on conflicts of interest and client confidences.

Q: Is an engagement letter required for the free monitoring service?

A: No. The committee notes that while an engagement letter would be prudent, New York's engagement-letter rules do not require one because the lawyer is not expected to charge $3,000 or more for the monitoring.

Background and rules framework

The opinion interprets DR 5-101 (a lawyer's own financial, business, property, or personal interest, the analogue of ABA Model Rule 1.7(a)(2)), DR 1-106 (lawyers who provide nonlegal services), and DR 2-103 (solicitation). It situates uncompensated legal work within the Code generally (the subject ABA Model Rule 6.1 addresses as voluntary pro bono service) and notes the New York engagement-letter rule at 22 NYCRR Part 1215.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

  • MR 1.7 (concurrent conflicts, lawyer's own interest); MR 6.1 (voluntary pro bono service)
  • Former Code DR 5-101 (lawyer's own-interest conflict); DR 1-106 (nonlegal services); DR 2-103 (solicitation)

Other authority:

  • 22 NYCRR Part 1215 (New York engagement-letter rules)

See also

Source

Get today's answer for your situation

You just read a 2008 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.