TNBPR October 18, 1982

What interest rate and time-price differential caps apply to a Tennessee lawyer's credit card and delinquent-account plans under the Board's guidelines?

Short answer: The opinion amended two numeric caps set in Formal Ethics Opinion 82-F-28: the time-price differential on credit card plans could not exceed the rate specified in T.C.A. 47-11-104, and the maximum effective interest rate on delinquent accounts could not exceed the rate specified in T.C.A. 47-14-103. The Board vacated this opinion on August 7, 2023 due to changes in the law or rules, so it is retained here only as historical context.

Apply this to your situation

This page answers the general question as of 1982. Ezel answers yours: whether it's allowed on your facts, under the current rules of professional conduct in your state, with citations.

Currency note: this opinion is from 1982
Subsequent statutory amendments, court decisions, or later opinions or rule amendments may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current legal advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or remedy mentioned here.
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 Not binding precedent.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) is the authoritative source for any reliance.

Currency note

The Board of Professional Responsibility vacated this opinion on August 7, 2023 due to changes in the law or rules. It was also issued in 1982, before Tennessee's adoption of the 2003 Rules of Professional Conduct, which replaced the former Code of Professional Responsibility. Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance. Verify against current rules before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or requirement mentioned here.

Plain-English summary

Following the issuance of Formal Ethics Opinion 82-F-28, which set guidelines for lawyers accepting credit card payment plans, the Board received requests for further consideration of two numeric items in that opinion: the time-price differential allowed on credit card plans, and the interest allowed on delinquent accounts.

The Committee amended Item 7 of 82-F-28 (governing credit card plans) so that the time-price differential used in the plan could not exceed the rate specified in T.C.A. 47-11-104, and amended Item 3 of 82-F-28 (governing interest on delinquent accounts) so that the maximum effective interest rate used to compute that interest could not exceed the rate specified in T.C.A. 47-14-103.

Common questions

Q: What did 82-F-28(a) change in the Board's credit card plan guidelines?

A: It tied two numeric caps to statutory rates. The opinion amends "Item 7 of Formal Ethics Opinion 82-F-28 relating to credit card plans" so that "the time price differential utilized in the plan shall not exceed that specified in TCA 47-11-104," and amends "Item 3 of Formal Ethics Opinion 82-F-28 relating to interest on delinquent accounts" so that the "maximum effective rate of interest ... shall not exceed the rate specified in TCA 47-14-103."

Q: Is this opinion still current guidance?

A: No. It carries a vacatur notice: "Vacated by the Board of Professional Responsibility on August 7, 2023 due to changes in the law or rules." The Board's 2023 opinion, Formal Ethics Opinion 2023-F-170, updates the guidelines for lawyers accepting credit card and payment-app fees.

Background and rules framework

This opinion amended specific numeric terms in Formal Ethics Opinion 82-F-28's credit card plan guidelines by reference to T.C.A. 47-11-104 (time-price differential) and T.C.A. 47-14-103 (maximum effective interest rate). It did not cite a Disciplinary Rule by number in its own text.

Citations and references

Statutes:

  • T.C.A. 47-11-104 (time-price differential cap, applied to the amended item 7)
  • T.C.A. 47-14-103 (maximum effective interest rate cap, applied to the amended item 3)

Other opinions cited:

  • Tennessee Formal Ethics Opinion 82-F-28: the original credit card plan guidelines this opinion amends

See also

Source

Original opinion text

Reproduced from the official source for research purposes. The linked source is authoritative.

82-F-28(a) - Vacated*

*Vacated by the Board of Professional Responsibility on August 7, 2023 due to changes in the law or rules.

FORMAL ETHICS OPINION 82-F-28(a)

Subsequent to the issuance of Formal Ethics Opinion 82-F-18, there have been requests for further consideration concerning the time price differential allowed on credit card plans and the interest allowed on delinquent accounts.

It is the opinion of the Committee that the time price differential allowed on credit card plans and the interest allowed on delinquent accounts should be changed.

Item 7 of Formal Ethics Opinion 82-F-28 relating to credit card plans is hereby amended as follows:

  1. The time price differential utilized in the plan shall not exceed that specified in TCA 47-11-104.

Item 3 of Formal Ethics Opinion 82-F-28 relating to interest on delinquent accounts is hereby amended as follows:

  1. The maximum effective rate of interest utilized in computing such interest shall not exceed the rate specified in TCA 47-14-103.

This 18th day of October, 1982.

ETHICS COMMITTEE:

William R. Willis, Chairman

F. Evans Harvill

John R. Rucker

APPROVED AND ADOPTED BY THE BOARD

Get today's answer for your situation

You just read a 1982 opinion on this question. Ezel checks the current rules of professional conduct in your state and answers your specific situation, with citations.

Opens in Ezel Pro. Every answer cites the rules it relies on.