A lawyer was suspended in 1987 after a felony conviction unrelated to law practice and is now eligible for work release. Can I hire him as a paralegal for duties that don't involve client or court contact?

Plain-English summary

The inquiring attorney asked whether he may hire a certain individual, referred to as Mr. X, to work as a paralegal in his law offices for duties that would not include contact with clients or the courts. Mr. X, a former attorney, was convicted of violating a federal statute; according to the sentencing judge's decision, the conviction had nothing to do with the practice of law and was not client related. Mr. X was suspended from the practice of law in 1987 as a result of the felony conviction and is now eligible for work release.

The panel explained that Provisional Order 18, "Use of Legal Assistance," effective February 1, 1983, lists both the functions a legal assistant may properly perform and the obligations of the employing attorney, the last of which, item 10, bars a lawyer from using or employing as a legal assistant any attorney suspended or disbarred by court order, or one who resigned in any jurisdiction for reasons related to a breach of ethical conduct. The panel noted Provisional Order 18 was promulgated under G.L. 1956 (1985 Reenactment) Section 8-6-2, which empowers the Supreme Court to make rules for regulating practice and provides that existing rules remain in force until revised, amended, repealed, or superseded, and that Provisional Order 18 has not been revised, amended, or repealed. The panel found that Rule 5.3, "Responsibilities Regarding Nonlawyer Assistants," adopted by the Supreme Court's November 15, 1988 order, does not supersede the specific ban in Provisional Order 18, item 10, either explicitly or implicitly, so the Order remains valid and in full force and effect.

The panel then quoted Rule 8.4(d), which makes it professional misconduct for a lawyer to engage in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice, and held that for the inquiring attorney's firm to hire Mr. X would violate Provisional Order 18, item 10, and that a violation of a Rhode Island Supreme Court Provisional Order would in turn constitute a violation of Rule 8.4(d).

Currency note

This opinion was issued in February 1990, after the Rhode Island Supreme Court adopted the Model Rules of Professional Conduct effective November 15, 1988, and it applies Rule 5.3 and Rule 8.4(d) as originally adopted, alongside Provisional Order 18 (effective February 1, 1983). The Rhode Island Supreme Court later revised the Rules of Professional Conduct in 2007 as part of the nationwide Ethics 2000 process. Subsequent rule amendments or later opinions may have changed the analysis, including the continued status of Provisional Order 18. Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance. Verify against current rules before relying on any specific rule mentioned here.

Common questions

Q: Can I hire a suspended or disbarred attorney as a paralegal if I limit their duties to avoid client or court contact?

A: Not under this opinion. The panel held that Provisional Order 18, item 10, categorically bars a lawyer from employing as a legal assistant any attorney suspended or disbarred by the court, without an exception for duties that avoid client or court contact.

Q: Does Rule 5.3 on nonlawyer assistants override the older Provisional Order 18 ban?

A: No. The panel found that Rule 5.3 does not supersede the specific ban in Provisional Order 18, item 10, either explicitly or implicitly, so the Provisional Order remains valid and in full force and effect.

Q: What rule would I violate if I went ahead and hired the suspended attorney?

A: The panel held that hiring the suspended attorney would violate Provisional Order 18, item 10, and that a violation of a Rhode Island Supreme Court Provisional Order would in turn constitute a violation of Rule 8.4(d), which makes conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice professional misconduct.

Background and rules framework

The opinion applies Rhode Island Supreme Court Provisional Order 18 (effective February 1, 1983), item 10, which bars employing a suspended or disbarred attorney as a legal assistant, together with Rule 5.3 (responsibilities regarding nonlawyer assistants) and Rule 8.4(d) (misconduct prejudicial to the administration of justice) of the Rhode Island Rules of Professional Conduct, as adopted effective November 15, 1988, to an inquiry about hiring a suspended attorney for limited paralegal duties.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• MR 5.3 (responsibilities regarding nonlawyer assistants)
• MR 8.4(d) (misconduct prejudicial to the administration of justice)
• RI RPC 5.3, 8.4(d), as adopted November 15, 1988
• Rhode Island Supreme Court Provisional Order 18 (effective February 1, 1983), item 10

Statutes:

• G.L. 1956 (1985 Reenactment) Section 8-6-2 (Supreme Court's rulemaking authority for practice and procedure)

Cases:

• None cited.

Other opinions cited:

• None cited.

See also

• ABA Formal Op. 506: Responsibilities Regarding Nonlawyer Assistants

Source

• Landing page: https://www.courts.ri.gov/attorney-resources/Pages/Ethics-Advisory-Panel-default.aspx
• Original PDF: https://www.courts.ri.gov/Opinions/EAP%2090-12.pdf

Original opinion text

Best-effort transcription from a scanned PDF. Minor errors may remain; the linked PDF is authoritative.

DIGEST OF ETHICS ADVISORY PANEL

OPINION 90-12, REQUEST 378
Issued February 27, 1990

An attorney seeks Panel advice as to whether he may properly hire a certain individual to work as a paralegal in his law offices.

The inquiring attorney advises the Panel that an attorney, (Mr. X) was convicted of violating a federal statute. The inquiring attorney states that according to the federal court justice's decision the conviction had nothing to do with the practice of law and was not client related. Mr. X was suspended from the practice of law in 1987 as a result of the felony conviction. Mr. X is now eligible for work release. The inquiring attorney asks if he may hire Mr. X for paralegal duties which do not include contact with clients or the courts.

Provisional Order 18, titled "Use of Legal Assistance" became effective February 1, 1983. In addition to listing functions which a legal assistant may properly perform the order lists the obligations of the employing attorney. The final obligation listed, item 10, provides:

A lawyer shall not use or employ as a legal assistant any attorney who has been suspended or disbarred pursuant to an order of this court, or an attorney who has resigned in this or any other jurisdiction for reasons related to a breach of ethical conduct.

Provisional Order 18 is promulgated pursuant to G.L. 1956 (1985 Reenactment) Section 8-6-2. Section 8-6-2 provides, in pertinent part that

The Supreme Court shall have the power to make rules for regulating practice, procedure and business therein.

The rules presently in effect in the courts of the judicial system shall remain and continue in force and effect until revised amended, repealed or superseded by rules.

Provisional Order 18 has not been revised, amended or repealed. The Rules of Professional Conduct, adopted by Supreme Court order dated November 15, 1988 include Rule 5.3, titled "Responsibilities regarding Nonlawyer Assistants." Rule 5.3 does not, however, supersede the specific ban set forth in Provisional Order 18, item 10, either explicitly or implicitly. The Panel therefore concludes that Provisional Order 18 is presently valid and has full force and effect.

Rule 8.4, titled "Misconduct," provides, in pertinent part:

It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to

(d) engage in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice ...

The Panel takes the position that for the inquiring attorney's firm to hire Mr. X would constitute a violation of Provisional Order 18, item 10 therein. A violation of a Provisional Order of the Rhode Island Supreme Court would, in turn constitute a violation of Rule 8.4(d).

Ethics Advisory Panel advice is protective in nature. There is no requirement that an attorney abide by a Panel opinion, but if he or she does, he or she is fully protected from any charge of impropriety.