Can an Oregon lawyer agree to handle only part of a client's matter, such as drafting pleadings for a pro se litigant or advising on one issue?

Plain-English summary

The opinion considers three limited-scope requests: Lawyer A is asked only to prepare pleadings for Client X, who plans to appear pro se and not disclose the lawyer's help; Lawyer B is asked to handle a single discrete issue in complex litigation where another firm represents the client; and Lawyer C is asked to help only with contract language while the client conducts the negotiations herself. The opinion asks whether the lawyers may limit their representations as requested, and answers yes, qualified.

The opinion applies Oregon RPC 1.2(b), which allows a lawyer to limit the scope of a representation if the limitation is reasonable under the circumstances and the client gives informed consent. This is sometimes called unbundling or discrete-task representation, and the limit may be to certain actions (drafting pleadings) or to certain issues (a single issue in litigation or a transaction). The limitation must be reasonable, meaning it allows enough work to yield advice the client can rely on, and it does not exempt the lawyer from competence; informed consent under Oregon RPC 1.0(g) requires the lawyer to explain the material risks (such as the difficulty a client may have identifying or addressing critical issues without counsel) and the reasonably available alternatives, and to state as fully as possible what the lawyer will not do. The lawyer must also comply with applicable procedural law, such as the Uniform Trial Court Rules governing pleadings prepared with a lawyer's assistance.

The opinion addresses how limited-scope representation interacts with Oregon RPC 4.2 (communication with a represented person). A pro se party receiving only limited assistance is generally treated as unrepresented, so the limited-scope lawyer should explain the limits of Oregon RPC 4.2 to the client and, if the client wants communications routed through the lawyer on some issues, should communicate the scope clearly to opposing counsel. The opinion concludes Oregon RPC 4.2 is not implicated for Lawyer A, who is not counsel of record, and that Lawyer C should make clear the limited representation does not include communicating with opposing counsel. Although informed consent to a limited-scope representation generally need not be in writing (and so no recommendation to consult independent counsel is required), the opinion concludes a written engagement letter specifically describing the scope, the fee, the limited tasks, and what the client must do minimizes the risk of mismatched expectations.

In practice

This opinion was revised in 2026 and interprets the current Oregon Rules of Professional Conduct. The opinion holds that limited-scope or unbundled representation is permitted under Oregon RPC 1.2(b) when the limitation is reasonable and the client gives informed consent. Per the opinion, the analysis turns on two requirements plus careful boundary-setting: the limit must leave enough work to be useful and consistent with competence, and the client must understand the risks and exactly what the lawyer will not do. The opinion holds that the lawyer still owes competence, diligence, and communication within the undertaken work, must follow procedural rules for assisted pleadings, and should clarify for the client and opposing counsel how Oregon RPC 4.2 applies, ideally documenting the arrangement in a written engagement letter.

Common questions

Q: Can a lawyer agree to handle only part of a client's legal matter?

A: Yes, qualified. The opinion concludes Oregon RPC 1.2(b) allows a lawyer to limit the scope of representation if the limitation is reasonable under the circumstances and the client gives informed consent.

Q: What does the lawyer have to tell the client first?

A: The opinion concludes the lawyer must explain the material risks of the limited scope and the reasonably available alternatives, and state as fully as possible what the lawyer will not do, so the lawyer and client do not develop different expectations.

Q: Does the limited scope reduce the lawyer's duties on the work taken on?

A: No. The opinion concludes a limited-scope representation does not absolve the lawyer of competence, diligence, communication, or conflict-checking duties as to the services actually undertaken.

Q: Can opposing counsel contact a pro se litigant who got limited help drafting pleadings?

A: Generally yes. The opinion concludes a pro se party receiving only limited assistance is treated as unrepresented for Oregon RPC 4.2, and that the rule was not implicated for the lawyer who merely prepared pleadings and was not counsel of record.

Background and rules framework

The opinion interprets Oregon RPC 1.2(b) (limiting the scope of representation), Oregon RPC 1.0(g) (informed consent), and Oregon RPC 4.2 (communication with a represented person), corresponding to Model Rules 1.2, 1.0, and 4.2. It notes the continuing duties of competence, diligence, and communication under Oregon RPC 1.1, 1.3, and 1.4 within the limited scope.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• Oregon RPC 1.2(b) / Model Rule 1.2 (limiting the scope of representation)
• Oregon RPC 1.0(g) / Model Rule 1.0 (informed consent)
• Oregon RPC 4.2 / Model Rule 4.2 (communication with a represented person)
• Oregon RPC 1.1, 1.3, 1.4 / Model Rules 1.1, 1.3, 1.4 (competence, diligence, communication)

Cases:

• In re Newell, 348 Or 396, 234 P3d 967 (2010), communicating with a represented person

Other opinions cited:

• OSB Formal Ethics Op. No. 2005-6 (rev 2026); OSB Formal Ethics Op. No. 2005-80 (rev 2026): communicating with a represented party
• Los Angeles County Bar Op. No. 502 (1999); DC Bar Op. No. 330 (2005); Kansas Bar Op. No. 09-01 (2009): pro se parties with limited assistance

See also

• ABA Formal Op. 07-446: Undisclosed Assistance to Pro Se Litigants
• ABA Formal Op. 472: Communication With a Person Receiving Limited-Scope Representation
• OSB Ethics Op. 2005-6: Communicating With Represented Persons

Source

• Landing page: https://www.osbar.org/ethics/toc.html
• Original PDF: https://www.osbar.org/_docs/ethics/2011-183.pdf