When can an Oregon lawyer assist nonlawyers (or sign documents prepared by them) without aiding the unauthorized practice of law?

Plain-English summary

The opinion addresses five lawyers in different scenarios involving assistance to nonlawyers. Lawyer A is asked to help nonlawyers handle forcible-entry-and-detainer (FED) actions that may be handled by nonlawyers under statute; Lawyer B to help a lawfully operating debt collection agency; Lawyer C to use a collection agency to collect debts owed to the lawyer and to the lawyer's clients; Lawyer D to prepare a form letter for a nonlawyer to fill in and sign in the lawyer's name without review, and to have legal assistants draft pleadings the lawyer would sign but not review; and Lawyer E to help a title and escrow company exceed the nonlawyer limits set in Oregon State Bar v. Security Escrows, Inc.

The opinion analyzes these under Oregon RPC 5.5(a), which bars assisting another in practicing law in violation of the regulation of the profession. Because Lawyers A and B would assist conduct that nonlawyers may lawfully perform, the opinion concludes they do not violate RPC 5.5(a). Lawyer C may likewise use a collection agency for the lawyer's own debts or to assist in collecting client debts, but the opinion cautions that in the latter case the lawyer must avoid sharing legal fees with a nonlawyer under RPC 5.4(a).

The opinion concludes Lawyer D's conduct would clearly violate RPC 5.5(a): a lawyer must supervise and control what is done in the lawyer's name. It concludes Lawyer E may not assist nonlawyer employees in going beyond the limits set by Security Escrows or otherwise assist the company in practicing law.

In practice

Under the Oregon rule as it stood at the time of the opinion, RPC 5.5(a) permitted a lawyer to assist nonlawyers with tasks nonlawyers may lawfully perform, but prohibited the lawyer from signing letters or pleadings the lawyer had not reviewed or helping a business cross the line into the practice of law. The opinion holds that the dividing line is whether the assisted conduct is itself authorized for nonlawyers and whether the lawyer retains supervision and control over work done in the lawyer's name.

Common questions

Q: Can a lawyer help nonlawyers handle matters that nonlawyers are allowed to handle?

A: Yes. The opinion concludes that assisting nonlawyers with conduct they may lawfully perform (such as statutory FED actions or lawful debt collection) does not violate Oregon RPC 5.5(a).

Q: Can a lawyer sign a letter or pleading that the lawyer did not review?

A: No. The opinion concludes this violates RPC 5.5(a) because a lawyer must supervise and control what is done in the lawyer's name.

Q: Can a lawyer use a collection agency to collect client debts?

A: Yes, with care. The opinion concludes the lawyer may do so but must avoid sharing legal fees with a nonlawyer under RPC 5.4(a).

Background and rules framework

The opinion interprets Oregon RPC 5.5(a) (a lawyer shall not assist another in practicing law in violation of the regulation of the profession) and RPC 5.4(a) (no sharing of legal fees with a nonlawyer). These track Model Rules 5.5 and 5.4.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• Oregon RPC 5.5(a) / Model Rule 5.5 (unauthorized practice; assisting another)
• Oregon RPC 5.4(a) / Model Rule 5.4 (sharing legal fees with a nonlawyer)

Statutes:

• ORS 105.105 to 105.168 (forcible entry and detainer)
• ORS 697.005 to 697.992 (debt collection agencies)

Cases:

• Oregon State Bar v. Security Escrows, Inc., 233 Or 80, 377 P2d 334 (1962)
• In re Jones, 308 Or 306, 779 P2d 1016 (1989)
• In re Little, 247 Or 503, 431 P2d 284 (1967)

See also

• OSB Ethics Op. 2005-24: Employing Suspended or Disbarred Lawyers
• OSB Ethics Op. 2005-12: Firm Names and Office Sharing

Source

• Landing page: https://www.osbar.org/ethics/toc.html
• Original PDF: https://www.osbar.org/_docs/ethics/2005-20.pdf