Could a lawyer offer clients a bank loan for legal fees under Orange County's 1993 opinion?
Apply this to your situation
This page answers the general question as of 1993. Ask about yours and see what the current rules of professional conduct in your state say for your facts, with citations.
Plain-English summary
A bank proposed lending legal-fee funds to clients and advancing them to participating lawyers. The bank would require lawyers to buy back disputed portions of notes and could offset a disputed amount against funds from another client's transaction. The committee found those recourse terms unacceptable because they could create conflicts with the disputing client and another participating client.
The opinion called for a nonrecourse arrangement as to the lawyer, an option for the lawyer to buy back a note voluntarily, and mandatory no-cost fee arbitration for client disputes. It said bank service charges could not be passed through as extra charges to individual plan participants. The committee also addressed advertising limits, client confidences, and refunds of unearned advanced fees.
The opinion distinguished the bank's eight percent service charge from sharing a legal fee, treating it as a separate financing transaction. It required the proposed agreement to protect information the bank received about clients.
Currency note
This opinion was issued in 1993, before California's 2018 revisions to the Rules of Professional Conduct. The State Bar's official rules page says the new rules became effective November 1, 2018. 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 Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance.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.
Common questions
Q: Did the committee reject all bank financing of legal fees?
A: No. It said a financing plan was not itself a rules violation, but the submitted plan lacked required safeguards.
Q: What was wrong with mandatory note buyback?
A: The committee said it could create a conflict with a client disputing fees, and offsetting another client's funds could create a separate conflict with that client.
Q: Was the bank's service charge treated as fee sharing?
A: No. The opinion characterized the eight percent charge as payment for a separate financing service.
Q: Could the bank receive confidential client information without restriction?
A: No. The committee called for a provision holding information given to the bank in strict confidence except as needed to collect the loan.
Background and rules framework
The opinion analyzes former California rules on adverse financial interests, conflicts, fees, advertising, nonlawyer fee division, and refunding unearned fees, along with Business and Professions Code section 6068(e) on client secrets. It cites San Diego Bar Formal Opinion 1983-1 for advertising safeguards.
Citations and references
Rules of Professional Conduct:
- California Rules of Professional Conduct 1-320, 1-400, 3-300, 3-310, 3-700(D)(2), and 4-200
Statutes:
- California Business and Professions Code section 6068(e)
Other opinions cited:
- San Diego Bar Formal Opinion 1983-1, advertising safeguards for financing arrangements
See also
Source
- Landing page: Orange County Bar ethics opinions
- Original PDF: Formal Opinion 93-002
What do the rules say today, for your facts?
This opinion is from 1993. Ezel checks the current rules of professional conduct in your state against your situation and cites the rules it relies on.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace