Ezel / Ethics Opinions / OCBAR

Could a supervised paralegal visit estate-planning clients and discuss attorney-written living trust packages?

Short answer On its limited facts, the opinion says a paralegal's client visits and trained answers did not constitute unauthorized practice where the lawyer supervised the work, wrote the trusts, and maintained the client relationship.
Bar
OCBAR
Issued
1994
Source
View official page

Apply this to your situation

This page answers the general question as of 1994. Ask about yours and see what the current rules of professional conduct in your state say for your facts, with citations.

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 Not binding precedent.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 as an official web page) is the authoritative source for any reliance.
View original ethics opinion (official page)

Plain-English summary

The paralegal visits prospective clients at home, answers questions within her training, and helps with living trust packages written by the supervising attorney. She defers questions outside her training until she has consulted the attorney.

The committee considers both the character of the work and the degree of lawyer supervision. It treats the paralegal's tasks as preparatory to the lawyer's completed work. It also cites the principle that delegation is proper when the lawyer maintains a direct client relationship, supervises the delegated work, and accepts professional responsibility for it.

Given that the attorney writes the trust package, supervises the paralegal, and maintains the direct client relationship, the committee concludes that the described paralegal work was not unauthorized practice.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1994, 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 Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance.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 view the client visits themselves as practicing law?

A: No. It characterized the paralegal's described work as preparatory to the lawyer's trust package.

Q: What happened when the client asked a question outside the paralegal's training?

A: The stated facts say she declined to answer until she had conferred with the attorney.

Q: Why did lawyer supervision matter?

A: The opinion relied on the lawyer's supervision, preparation of the trust package, and direct relationship with the client in reaching its conclusion.

Background and rules framework

The opinion applies California Business and Professions Code section 6125's prohibition on practicing law without active State Bar membership. It discusses Crawford v. State Bar on the boundary between preparatory work and the lawyer's completed product, and ABA Ethical Consideration 3-6 on supervised delegation.

Citations and references

Statutes:

  • California Business and Professions Code section 6125

Cases:

  • Crawford v. State Bar (1960) 54 Cal.2d 659, 667, preparatory work and the practice of law

Other opinions cited:

  • ABA Ethical Consideration 3-6, supervised delegation

See also

Source

What do the rules say today, for your facts?

This opinion is from 1994. 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