Can a legal aid society refer cases it can't take due to a conflict to a volunteer lawyers' project and still represent the opposing party?
Ohio BPC Opinion 89-025: Legal Aid Referring Conflict Cases to a Volunteer Lawyers' Project
Short answer: The Board concluded that a legal aid society may refer conflict cases it cannot accept to a volunteer lawyers' project funded through it, and may still represent the opposing party, provided intake files are walled off from the society's attorneys and each case is handled individually.
Disclaimer: This is an advisory ethics opinion. Advisory opinions are not binding; they interpret the Ohio Board of Professional Conduct's rules of professional conduct and are persuasive authority. This summary is for research purposes only and is not legal advice. Verify current rules before acting on any specific guidance.
About this page: The plain-English summary and Q&A below were written by Ezel based on the official opinion. The opinion text is reproduced at the bottom; the official source (linked) controls.
Currency note
This opinion was issued in 1989 under the former Ohio Code of Professional Responsibility, which was superseded by the Ohio Rules of Professional Conduct effective February 1, 2007. Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance. Verify against the current Ohio Rules of Professional Conduct before relying on any specific rule mentioned here.
Plain-English summary
The question was whether a city's volunteer lawyers' project (VLP), funded through a legal aid society under a Legal Service Corporation grant, could accept cases the legal aid society could not take because of a conflict of interest. The legal aid society did the initial intake screening: an intake worker recorded the caller's name, address, income, the adversary's name, and the nature of the problem, in files not accessible to the society's staff attorneys, and determined whether representing the client would be a conflict. The society wanted to send clients who cleared the financial and case-type screening but presented a conflict to the VLP, which could mean the society representing a wife in a custody case while a VLP attorney represented the husband.
The Board concluded the legal aid society may send clients it cannot represent due to a conflict to the VLP. It stressed that the society must ensure the intake-worker files on callers are not accessible to the office's attorneys, which it called essential where the VLP and the society represent opposing parties, and recommended that each case be handled individually with attention to the duty of confidentiality, the appearance of impropriety, and any conflict of interest. The opinion noted the caller does not discuss the problem in detail with a lawyer at intake, and that the Legal Service Corporation funding must not influence any volunteer lawyer's independent professional judgment.
Common questions
Q: Can legal aid hand off its conflict cases to a volunteer project and still take the other side?
A: Under this opinion, yes. The Board concluded the society may refer conflict cases to the VLP and still represent the opposing party, subject to confidentiality safeguards.
Q: What safeguard did the Board emphasize?
A: The opinion required that the intake files on callers be kept inaccessible to the society's attorneys, calling that essential where the society and the VLP represent opposing parties.
Background and rules framework
The opinion addresses conflicts of interest and confidentiality under the former Ohio Code of Professional Responsibility in the legal-aid context, where a funded volunteer lawyers' project takes referrals and the funding source must not influence the volunteer lawyer's independent professional judgment.
Citations and references
Rules of Professional Responsibility (Ohio):
- Former Ohio Code of Professional Responsibility (conflicts of interest and confidentiality; no specific DR cited in the opinion)
Other authorities cited:
- Wolfram, Modern Legal Ethics 943 (1986)
See also
- Ohio BPC Opinion 1989-004: Legal Services Board Setting Case Priorities
- Ohio BPC Opinion 1989-013: Representing a Client Against a Former Client
- Ohio BPC Opinion 1988-003: Legal Aid Lawyer Direct-Mail Solicitation
Source
- Landing page: https://ohioadvop.org/advisory-opinion-index/
- Original PDF: https://www.ohioadvop.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/Op-89-025.pdf
Original opinion text
Reproduced from the official source for research purposes. The linked source is authoritative.
The Supreme Court of Ohio
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ON GRIEVANCES AND DISCIPLINE
41 SOUTH HIGH STREET-SUITE 3370, COLUMBUS, OH 43215-6105
(614) 644-5800 FAX: (614) 644-5804
OFFICE OF SECRETARY
OPINION 89-25
Issued August 18, 1989
[CPR Opinion-provides advice under the Ohio Code of Professional Responsibility which is superseded by the Ohio Rules of Professional Conduct, eff. 2/1/2007.]
SYLLABUS: A legal aid society may send cases they cannot accept due to a conflict of interest to a volunteer lawyers' project without jeopardizing their right to represent the opposing side in the controversy. A person calling the legal aid society does not discuss his or her problem with a lawyer nor give any detailed information other than the general nature of the problem. The Legal Service Corporation's funding of the volunteer lawyers' project is accomplished through the legal aid society. This funding must not influence the independent professional judgment of any volunteer lawyer.
OPINION: We have before us your request for an advisory opinion on whether a city's volunteer lawyers' project can accept cases which the legal aid society cannot accept due to a conflict of interest. The volunteer lawyers' project (VLP) is funded through the legal aid society as required by a grant from the Legal Service Corporation. In compliance with the Legal Service Corporation's requirements, the legal aid society does the initial intake screening for cases which may ultimately be referred to the VLP.
An intake worker at the legal aid society takes the caller's name, address, source and amount of income, adversary's name and nature of the problem. The files created by the intake workers are not accessible to the staff attorneys in the legal aid office. The intake worker determines whether it would be a conflict of interest for the legal aid society to represent the client. If there is no conflict and the caller meets other requirements, the client is accepted for representation and an appointment with an attorney is set.
The legal aid society would like to send those clients who pass the initial financial and case type screening, but show up as a conflict, to the VLP. As you indicate in your letter this would mean that the legal aid society could be representing a wife in a custody case while a VLP attorney might be representing the husband in that same action.
In our view, this is a means of providing legal services to "those who are eligible for legal services but whose representation by legal service program lawyers would cause a conflict." Wolfram, Modern Legal Ethics, 943 (1986).
In our view, your legal aid society may send those clients which your office cannot represent due to a conflict of interest to the VLP. We suggest however, that the legal aid society insure that the files on callers prepared by intake workers are not accessible to the attorneys in the office. This becomes essential in cases where the VLP and legal aid society represent opposing parties in a case. We recommend that each case be handled individually taking into consideration the duty of confidentiality, the appearance of impropriety and any conflict of interest.
This is an informal, non-binding advisory opinion based upon the facts presented and limited to questions arising under the Code of Professional Responsibility.