Can a Virginia lawyer volunteer at a courthouse self-help center for pro se litigants without forming an attorney-client relationship?

Plain-English summary

The opinion addresses a proposed Family Court Self-Help Center staffed by volunteer lawyers and paralegals ("Facilitators") who would give unrepresented family-law litigants forms, sample pleadings, support calculations, and general legal information, and help complete forms, while signing a "Customer Agreement" stating the Facilitator is not the customer's lawyer, gives no legal advice, keeps nothing confidential, and may assist opposing parties.

The committee concludes the Customer Agreement does not violate the rules. Citing LEO 1842 (2008), it treats such disclaimers as a proper way to prevent a person from forming a reasonable belief that the Facilitator is their lawyer, consistent with Rule 1.2(b)'s allowance for limiting the objectives of a representation with the client's consent.

The central distinction is between activity that is not "short-term limited legal services" and activity that is. Disseminating educational materials, forms, sample pleadings, and general information already available on a court or legal-services website, preparing support calculations, and answering general questions are not "short-term limited legal services," so Rule 6.5 does not apply and no conflict list is required. By contrast, helping a litigant complete a form pleading or legal document, or giving advice on completing it, is "short-term limited legal services" under Comment [1] to Rule 6.5, which establishes a client-lawyer relationship even though no ongoing representation is expected. The committee notes that whether any given activity is the "practice of law" or whether an attorney-client relationship arose are questions of law beyond its purview.

For conflicts, the committee explains that when Rule 6.5 applies, the volunteer must comply with Rules 1.7 and 1.9(a) only where the lawyer actually knows of a conflict, and Rule 1.10 imputation does not reach the volunteer's firm unless the volunteer knows a firm lawyer is disqualified. The Customer Agreement's waiver covers conflicts within the program (so the program can help adverse parties), but it does not waive a later Rule 1.9(a) conflict if the volunteer is afterward retained on an ongoing basis adverse to a former short-term client in the same or a substantially related matter. If a Facilitator is a paralegal rather than a lawyer, the paralegal may not, unsupervised, prepare pleadings or assist in completing form documents, because UPL Opinion 207 (2005) treats that as the unauthorized practice of law (Rule 5.5(c), LEO 1792).

In practice

Under the Virginia rules as they stood when the opinion issued, a lawyer may participate in a courthouse self-help or pro se assistance program. The opinion holds that handing out forms, sample pleadings, and general legal information, preparing support calculations, and answering general questions are not "short-term limited legal services," so Rule 6.5 is not triggered and no conflict list is required for those activities. It holds that assisting a litigant in completing a form pleading, or advising on its completion, is "short-term limited legal services" that creates a limited client-lawyer relationship under Rule 6.5; in that situation the volunteer must address conflicts the lawyer actually knows about under Rules 1.7 and 1.9(a), with no Rule 1.10 imputation to the firm absent knowledge of a firm conflict. The opinion holds that a written disclaimer or Customer Agreement limiting the scope of assistance and disclaiming a confidential relationship is permissible under Rule 1.2(b), and that a paralegal Facilitator may not, unsupervised, prepare or help complete pleadings or other legal documents.

Common questions

Q: Does volunteering at a courthouse self-help center make the litigant my client?

A: Not for general help. The opinion holds that distributing forms, sample pleadings, and general legal information and answering general questions are not "short-term limited legal services" and create no client-lawyer relationship. Helping the litigant complete a form pleading, or advising on its completion, is "short-term limited legal services" under Comment [1] to Rule 6.5, which does establish a (limited) client-lawyer relationship.

Q: Do I have to run conflict checks before helping someone at the center?

A: Rule 6.5(a) dispenses with systematic conflict screening for short-term limited legal services; the volunteer must comply with Rules 1.7 and 1.9(a) only where the lawyer actually knows a conflict exists. Rule 1.10 does not impute the volunteer's conflict to the firm unless the volunteer knows a firm lawyer is disqualified.

Q: Does the Customer Agreement's conflict waiver protect me if I am later hired against a person I helped?

A: No. The opinion states the program waiver covers conflicts within the program, but it does not waive a later Rule 1.9(a) conflict if the volunteer is afterward retained on an ongoing basis adverse to a former short-term client in the same or a substantially related matter.

Q: Can a paralegal Facilitator help litigants fill out pleadings?

A: Not without supervision. The opinion, citing UPL Opinion 207 (2005), states that a non-lawyer's assistance to the public in completing form documents, or advice on completing them, is the unauthorized practice of law, so lawyers may not train a paralegal to provide such unsupervised services (Rule 5.5(c)).

Background and rules framework

The opinion interprets Rule 6.5 of the Virginia Rules of Professional Conduct (Model Rule 6.5), governing short-term limited legal services provided through nonprofit or court-annexed programs, together with Rule 1.2(b) (limiting the objectives of a representation with the client's consent). It applies the conflicts rules, Rules 1.7 and 1.9(a), and the imputation rule, Rule 1.10, as modified by Rule 6.5(a) for the short-term setting, and it addresses non-lawyer supervision and the unauthorized practice of law under Rule 5.5(c). The committee repeatedly notes that whether particular conduct is the "practice of law" or creates an attorney-client relationship are legal questions outside its authority, and it draws on Virginia UPL opinions and LEO 1842 for the line between legal information and legal advice.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• Model Rule 6.5 / Va. Rule 6.5 (short-term limited legal services)
• Model Rule 1.2(b) / Va. Rule 1.2(b) (limiting objectives of representation)
• Model Rule 1.7 / Va. Rule 1.7 (concurrent conflicts)
• Model Rule 1.9(a) / Va. Rule 1.9(a) (duties to former clients)
• Model Rule 1.10 / Va. Rule 1.10 (imputation of conflicts)
• Model Rule 5.5(c) / Va. Rule 5.5(c) (unauthorized practice; assisting non-lawyers)

Other opinions cited:

• Va. LEO 1842 (2008): website and intake disclaimers to avoid an unintended client relationship
• Va. LEO 1761 (2002): legal aid may give pro se litigants sample pleadings and forms where no advice is given
• Va. LEO 1803 (2005): institutional prison attorney's relationship with inmates
• Va. LEO 1792: supervision of non-lawyer assistants
• Va. UPL Op. 207 (2005): completing forms for the public is the unauthorized practice of law

See also

• VSB Ethics Op. 1874: Ghostwriting and Undisclosed Assistance to Pro Se Litigants
• VSB Ethics Op. 1872: Virtual Law Office and Executive Office Suites

Source

• Landing page: https://vsb.org/Site/about/rules-regulations/leo-opinions.aspx
• Original PDF: https://www.vsb.org/common/Uploaded%20files/LEOs/1869.pdf

Original opinion text

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

Supreme Court Approved
November 2, 2016
Committee Opinion
May 28, 2013

LEGAL ETHICS OPINION 1869

ASSISTING PRO SE LITIGANTS—
COURTHOUSE ASSISTANCE
PROGRAM

The dramatic increase in self-representation in the courts has generated discussion of how
and to what extent lawyers may provide limited legal assistance to pro se litigants. 1 This opinion
discusses a scenario in which a Circuit Court Committee composed of members of the local bar
is considering the creation of a Family Court Self-Help Center (FCSHC) to assist unrepresented
persons in family law cases. With the help of volunteer lawyers and paralegals, this program
would provide education, materials, legal forms, sample pleadings and general legal information
already found on the court’s website or the website of other legal services organizations. The
volunteers would also assist the pro se litigants in the completion of form documents and
pleadings. 2
An FCSHC “Facilitator,” who is a licensed Virginia lawyer or a paralegal with training
in family law, will assist customers who are not represented by a lawyer. The Facilitator will
distribute court forms and sample pleadings and will assist customers in completing forms and
sample pleadings, prepare support calculations and make referrals to legal and community
service organizations. The Facilitator cannot represent any customers or provide legal advice.
Through the use of a “Customer Agreement” signed by the customer, the Facilitator will have the
customer acknowledge in writing that:
•
•

I do not have an attorney.
I understand that the Facilitator is not my attorney.

1

AN ANALYSIS OF RULES THAT ENABLE LAWYERS TO SERVE PRO SE LITIGANTS, ABA STANDING COMMITTEE ON
THE DELIVERY OF LEGAL SERVICES (November 2009) at 4 at
http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/migrated/legalservices/delivery/downloads/prose_white_paper.authch
eckdam.pdf (“ABA Report”) citing Self-Represented Litigants and Court Legal Services Responses to Their Needs:
What We Know, by John Greacen (undated), at
http://www.lri.lsc.gov/pdf/02/020045_selfrep_litigants&whatweknow.pdf, reporting on an internal analysis of four
California counties, where 91.1 percent of small claims and 81.1 of landlord/tenant proceedings went forward with
at least one pro se litigant. See also No Time for Justice: A Study of Chicago Eviction Court, by the Chicago
Lawyers Committee for Better Housing and the Chicago-Kent College of Law Class of 2004 Honors Scholar
(December 2003), finding that in 96 percent of observed eviction cases at least one party was unrepresented.
2

Courts in Washington, California and Florida use courthouse facilitators who assist with detailed procedural
information and form preparation on a one-to-one basis. Other courts have established desks staffed by volunteer
lawyers who provide similar individual information. Several courts have self-help centers, following a model
originated in the Maricopa County branch of the Superior Court of Arizona. These centers or kiosks provide forms,
packets of information and sometimes, technological tools to provide directions and answers for an array of
procedural questions. State courts also provide extensive information through the Internet. Many courts provide
downloadable forms and a few incorporate document assembly tools so that litigants can either fill in the forms
online or answer questions that are used to assemble the forms needed for the litigant’s matter. See ABA Report,
supra, n.1 at 5.

1

Supreme Court Approved
November 2, 2016
Committee Opinion
May 28, 2013

•
•
•
•
•

I understand that nothing I tell the Facilitator is confidential.
I understand that the Facilitator will not represent me in court.
I understand that the Facilitator may assist the other party or parties in my court case.
I understand that the Facilitator cannot give me legal advice.
I understand that some issues cannot be addressed without the assistance of an attorney
and that I may be referred to an attorney.

Questions Presented:
1. Does the proposed Customer Agreement violate any Rules of Professional Conduct?
The Committee believes that it is not unethical for lawyers to use disclaimers or
agreements in order to limit the scope of assistance provided to a pro se litigant to avoid creating
an unintended lawyer-client relationship with a person with whom the lawyer is interacting. The
Committee addressed this concern in Virginia Legal Ethics Opinion 1842 (2008):
. . . [T]o avoid any inference that an attorney-client relationship has been
established or that the information a prospective client provides will be kept
confidential, a law firm may wish to consider the inclusion of a disclaimer on the
website or external voicemail warning the person to not disclose confidential or
sensitive information. The website disclaimer might also state, for example, that
no attorney-client relationship is being formed when a prospective client submits
information and that the firm has no duty to maintain as confidential any
information submitted. The disclaimer should be clearly worded so as to
overcome a reasonable belief on the part of the prospective client that the
information will be maintained as confidential. In addition, the Committee
recommends the use of a “click-through” (aka “click-wrap”) disclaimer, which
requires the prospective client to assent to the terms of the disclaimer before being
permitted to submit the information.
The Customer Agreement similarly has the pro se litigant understand and acknowledge that the
limited assistance provided by the Facilitator does not create a lawyer-client relationship, that no
legal advice is given, that information will not be kept confidential 3 and that the Facilitator may
provide assistance to adverse litigants. Without such disclaimers in the Customer Agreement a
person receiving limited assistance might form a belief or expectation that the Facilitator is their
lawyer and thereby bound by the ethical duties that apply when a lawyer-client relationship is
formed. See LEO 1842.

3

Given the limited scope of the services in this hypothetical the disclosure of confidential information is likely to be
minimal.

2

Supreme Court Approved
November 2, 2016
Committee Opinion
May 28, 2013

Further, Rule 1.2(b) provides that a lawyer may limit the objectives of the representation
if the client consents after consultation. Comment 6 to that rule provides: “The objectives or
scope of services provided by the lawyer may be limited by agreement with the client or by the
terms under which the lawyer’s services are made available to the client.” The proposed
Customer Agreement is consistent with these principles.
2. Would a lawyer participating in the FCSHC be providing “short-term limited legal services”
contemplated by Rule 6.5 of the Virginia Rules of Professional Conduct? For example, would a
participating lawyer be providing “short term limited legal services” if he or she participates in a
legal education seminar or other information session sponsored either by the local court(s) or the
local bar association, which is open to members of the public, and specifically tailored to pro se
litigants on general family law issues in Virginia, to include: presentation of educational
material, forms, sample pleadings, and information already found on the court’s website and the
websites of legal services groups; as well as a mock demonstration on how to present evidence in
an ore tenus uncontested divorce hearing or in an ore tenus pendente lite support hearing?
Comment [1] to Rule 6.5 provides useful guidance in addressing this question:
Legal services organizations, courts and various nonprofit organizations have
established programs through which lawyers provide short-term limited legal
services - such as advice or the completion of legal forms - that will assist persons
to address their legal problems without further representation by a lawyer. In
these programs, such as legal-advice hotlines, advice-only clinics or pro se
counseling programs, a client-lawyer relationship is established, but there is no
expectation that the lawyer's representation of the client will continue beyond the
limited consultation. Such programs are normally operated under circumstances in
which it is not feasible for a lawyer to systematically screen for conflicts of
interest as is generally required before undertaking a representation. See, e.g.,
Rules 1.7, 1.9 and 1.10.
In other words, a lawyer providing “short-term limited legal services” under Rule 6.5 has created
a lawyer-client relationship, albeit the scope of the representation has been limited with the
informed consent of the client pursuant to Rule 1.2(b). However, for purposes of Question 2, the
Committee does not believe that the term “short-term limited legal services” embraces any of the
activity you have described, i.e., the participation of volunteer attorneys in a legal education class
or information seminar that is open to the public, providing education materials, forms, sample
pleadings and other information already found on the Court’s website or the websites of legal
services groups. 4 Accordingly, a volunteer lawyer’s participation in any of the activities
4

Authorities have long distinguished between providing “legal information” and giving “legal advice.” See Virginia
Legal Ethics Op. 1577 (1995) and Va. UPL Op. 185 (1995)(concluding bankruptcy legal information hotline staffed

3

Supreme Court Approved
November 2, 2016
Committee Opinion
May 28, 2013

described in Question 2 is not a “short-term limited legal service” subject to Rule 6.5. Merely
providing sample pleadings or forms to a pro se litigant is not the practice of law; however, the
completion of a form pleading or legal document for the pro se litigant would be. 5
3. Does a lawyer provide “short-term limited legal services” by participating in a self-help or
pro se legal information center housed within the courthouse and sponsored either by the local
court(s) or the local bar association, which is open to members of the public, and specifically
tailored to pro se litigants, to assist them in the dissemination of educational materials, forms,
sample pleadings, and information already found on the court’s website and the website of legal
services groups; to assist with the completion of forms and sample pleadings, preparation of
support calculations and to otherwise assist in the answering of general questions?
As explained in response to Question 2, the examples of “short-term limited legal
services” in Comment 1 to Rule 6.5 do not include the dissemination of educational materials,
forms, sample pleadings and general legal information already found on the court’s website or
the websites of other legal services groups; nor do they include preparing support calculations or
otherwise assisting in the answering of general questions. Therefore, the volunteer lawyer’s
participation in such activity does not, in the Committee’s view, constitute “short-term limited
legal services” subject to Rule 6.5. Whether such activity constitutes the “practice of law” is a
question beyond the purview of this Committee but prior opinions of this Committee and the
Standing Committee on the Unauthorized Practice of Law and other legal authorities provide
guidance on this question. 6 However, if the volunteer assists the pro se litigant in the completion

by non-lawyers is not “practicing law” but recommending disclaimer that the information provided “is not legal
advice.”); Va. UPL Op. 131 (1989) (non-attorneys may provide general information about legal matters (i.e.
religious freedom) to members of the general public through seminars, publications, responses to letters, and
telephone inquiries); Va. UPL Op. 104 (1987) (Committee approved of an attorney licensed in a foreign jurisdiction
publishing articles containing general legal information in a Virginia newspaper stating that "general legal
information is distinguished from specific legal advice to specific clients with regard to their respective problems.");
Va. LEO 1368 (1990) (lawyer-mediator who provides legal information not legal advice to disputants is not per se
engaged in the practice of law). For a detailed and thorough analysis of the difference between “legal information”
and “legal advice” see Report: Unauthorized Practice of Law Guidelines for Virginia Mediators at
http://www.courts.state.va.us/courtadmin/aoc/djs/programs/drs/mediation/resources/upl_guidelines.pdf (last checked
December 18, 2012).
5

In Va. Legal Ethics Op. 1761 (2002) this Committee concluded that it would not be improper for a legal aid office
to assist pro se litigants who did not qualify for legal services by providing sample pleadings and forms where no
legal advice is given.

6

In regard to providing general legal information see note 4, supra. See also, Va. UPL Op. 73 (1985) (It is not the
unauthorized practice of law for a non-lawyer to prepare form documents such as wills, leases, power-of-attorney,
bills of sales for sale for the general public. It is, however, the unauthorized practice of law for a non-lawyer to give
assistance to the general public in the completion of such forms or to render any legal advice concerning the
completion of the forms.); New York Lawyers' Assn. v. Dacey, 287 N.Y.S.2d 422, 21 N.Y.2d 694, 234 N.E.2d 459
(N.Y. Ct. App. 1967) (publication of book How to Avoid Probate and multitude of forms for all manner of legal

4

Supreme Court Approved
November 2, 2016
Committee Opinion
May 28, 2013

of form legal documents or sample pleadings or gives legal advice to assist in the completion of
legal forms, such activity is considered “short-term limited legal services” according to
Comment 1 to Rule 6.5.7
4. Is an attorney-client relationship established by participation in any of the activities described
in (2) or (3)?
This is a question of law beyond the Committee’s purview. 8 Whether information given
by a volunteer lawyer to a pro se litigant is “legal advice” or “legal information” is also factspecific and the Committee cannot render findings of fact or conclusions of law. 9 Comment 1 to
Rule 6.5 explains that a client-lawyer relationship is established, however, if a volunteer lawyer
performs “short-term limited legal services.”
5. Is it necessary to keep a conflict list of participants who attend sessions or centers as
described in (2) or (3)?
Whether a list of participants or customers must be maintained is fact-specific and will
depend upon the nature of the services provided to a customer and whether a volunteer lawyer is
aware of a conflict when providing short-term limited legal services to a customer. 10 If the

situations is a commonplace activity and their use by the Bar and public in general; and conjoining of the text and
the forms with advice as to how the forms should be filled out does not constitute the unlawful practice of law).
7

See also Va. UPL Op. 207 (2005) (preparation of warrants in debt and other forms necessary for pro se
representation by non-lawyer is unauthorized practice of law) (2005); Va. Legal Ethics Op. 1803 (2005) (attorney
serving as institutional attorney at a state prison pursuant to Va. Code §53.1-40 has an attorney-client relationship
with at least some of the inmates receiving assistance, based on the legal advice or services provided in those
instances).
8

See notes 4-6, supra. See also Pt. 6, §I(B) of the Rules of the Supreme Court of Virginia:
Generally, the relation of attorney and client exists, and one is deemed to be practicing law whenever he furnishes to
another advice or service under circumstances which imply his possession and use of legal knowledge or skill.
Specifically, the relation of attorney and client exists, and one is deemed to be practicing law whenever 1. One undertakes for compensation, direct or indirect, to advise another, not his regular employer,
in any matter involving the application of legal principles to facts or purposes or desires.
2. One, other than as a regular employee acting for his employer, undertakes, with or without
compensation, to prepare for another legal instruments of any character, other than notices or
contracts incident to the regular course of conducting a licensed business.
3. One undertakes, with or without compensation, to represent the interest of another before any
tribunal - judicial, administrative, or executive - otherwise than in the presentation of facts,
figures, or factual conclusions, as distinguished from legal conclusions, by an employee regularly
and bona fide employed on a salary basis, or by one specially employed as an expert in respect to
such facts and figures when such representation by such employee or expert does not involve the
examination of witnesses or preparation of pleadings.
9

See note 4, supra.

5

Supreme Court Approved
November 2, 2016
Committee Opinion
May 28, 2013

activity described in Questions 2 and 3 does not constitute the practice of law or create a clientlawyer relationship, it is not necessary to keep a conflict list of participants who attend sessions
or centers. If the volunteer lawyer provides a “short-term limited legal service” under Rule 6.5, a
client-lawyer relationship is created, and the lawyer may need to make a list of those persons to
avoid conflicts that may arise in the future after providing short-term limited services to a
customer. Under the written Customer Agreement the “client” will have waived any conflict
created by that lawyer’s (or any other participating lawyer’s) short-term limited assistance to
another party in the same matter. This conflict waiver, which is limited to the lawyer’s
representation of other clients in a short-term limited representation, is to allow the program to
serve participants in the program whose interests are directly adverse.
However, after concluding a short-term limited representation, the participating lawyer
may still be personally disqualified under Rule 1.9(a) if he or she is subsequently employed on
an ongoing basis by a new client adverse to the former client in the same or substantially related
matter. For example, if the participating lawyer assists a mother in filing a petition for child
custody, the same lawyer may not represent the father in the same or related matter on an
ongoing basis. Rule 1.9(a). The waiver executed by the customer in the hypothetical does not
address conflicts that may arise after a limited representation governed by Rule 6.5. While
working under the auspices of the program, Rule 6.5(a) requires compliance with Rules 1.7 or
1.9(a) if the lawyer knows that the representation of the short-term limited legal services client
involves a conflict. If the lawyer is aware of a conflict, the lawyer must either decline the
representation 11 or obtain the affected client’s consent. Under those circumstances, a record of
the short-term limited representation would likely be necessary to detect, manage or avoid
concurrent conflicts and successive employment conflicts in the same or substantially related
matter. 12
As Rule 6.5(a)(2) states, unless the participating lawyer knows that another lawyer in the
firm has a conflict, a lawyer associated in the participating lawyer’s law firm may represent a
client adverse to the limited representation client. Rule 1.10 does not apply and the conflict is
not imputed to the participating lawyer’s firm. While Rule 6.5 dispenses with the need for the
volunteer lawyers to conduct conflicts checks before providing short-term limited legal services
10

As a practical matter, if the participant and volunteer/facilitator both sign off on the Customer Agreement a record
will be made, and a “client list” can be easily made by a compilation of the agreements. The Committee assumes
that the program will retain these agreements in case questions, concerns, misunderstandings or complaints are made
about the services provided or the agreements under which they were provided.
11
Even if the participating lawyer declines the representation because he or she knows of a conflict, it would
behoove that lawyer to make a record of the declination in case the issue is raised later.
12

The Rules of Professional Conduct do not mandate that a lawyer keep a “conflict list” or a list of persons he or she
has represented. However, as a practical matter, such lists are often the only means by which conflicts can be
detected.

6

Supreme Court Approved
November 2, 2016
Committee Opinion
May 28, 2013

to a customer, the rule does not govern conflicts that may arise after a volunteer lawyer has
provided short-term limited legal services to a customer and is thereafter asked to undertake
representation by an adversary in the same or substantially related matter.
6. Does Rule 6.5 apply to participation in a program described in (2) or (3)?
Rule 6.5 does not apply unless the services provided are “short-term limited legal
services.” As stated previously, much of the activity you describe does not constitute “shortterm limited legal services” subject to Rule 6.5. However, if the volunteer assists the pro se
litigant in the completion of form legal documents or sample pleadings or gives legal advice in
the completion of legal forms, such activity is considered “short-term limited legal services”
subject to Rule 6.5.
If the Facilitator is a paralegal rather than a lawyer, the paralegal’s assistance may not
include the unsupervised preparation of pleadings or other legal documents, nor may the
paralegal without supervision assist the pro se litigant in the preparation of sample form
pleadings or other legal documents. See UPL Op. 207 (2005) (non-lawyer assistance to the
general public in the completion of form documents or the providing of legal advice concerning
the completion of forms is the unauthorized practice of law). 13 Therefore, the lawyers
participating in the FCSHC may not train a paralegal to provide unsupervised services that
constitute the unauthorized practice of law. LEO 1792, Rule 5.5(c).
7. If participation in (2) or (3) creates a “short-term limited legal relationship” or an attorneyclient relationship, should the Customer Agreement require the customer to sign and
acknowledge that:
“(a) the scope of the representation is limited to that provided in the session or center,
(b) the relationship does not continue after the session or center assistance is concluded,
and
(c) the pro se litigant should obtain further assistance, if needed, from another lawyer
outside the center or session.”?
If the lawyer’s participation in the FCSHC creates a “short-term limited legal
relationship” or a client-lawyer relationship subject to Rule 6.5, it would not be improper for the
participating lawyer to have the client acknowledge in writing limitations on the scope of the
13

“The only assistance that a social worker, or any non-lawyer may provide to a pro se litigant to complete form
legal documents is direct translation of the document (if the litigant does not speak or read English) to the litigant’s
native language, direct transcription, or direct transcription and translation to English, of information necessary to
complete forms as dictated by the litigant. The social worker may also provide general administrative instructions
such as how and where and when to file the forms with the appropriate court/tribunal.” UPL Op. 207 (2005).

7

Supreme Court Approved
November 2, 2016
Committee Opinion
May 28, 2013

representation including that (a) the scope of the representation is limited to the services
provided in the session or center; (b) the relationship does not continue after the session or center
assistance is concluded; and (c) the pro se litigant should obtain further assistance, if needed,
from another lawyer outside the center or session. See Rule 1.2(b).
8. If guidelines were established for attorney volunteers distinguishing between information and
legal advice, such as those attached, would that make a difference in the answer to question 4?
Guidelines that assist the volunteers in distinguishing between “legal information” and
“legal advice” would help to prevent the inadvertent provision of “legal advice” to a pro se
litigant and the unintended creation of a client-lawyer relationship. For further guidance on this
subject, there are articles and resources on the Internet often used for training court personnel so
that they do not inadvertently engage in the unauthorized practice of law when they assist pro se
litigants. 14
Supreme Court Approved
November 2, 2016
Committee Opinion
May 28, 2013

14

John M. Greachen, Legal information vs. legal advice—Developments during the last five years, American
Judicature Society, located at http://www.ajs.org/prose/pro_greacen.asp (last checked December 19, 2012); Legal
Information vs. Legal Advice: Guidelines and Instructions for Clerks and Court Personnel Who Work with SelfRepresented Litigants in Texas State Courts, Texas Courts Online located at
http://www.courts.state.tx.us/pubs/LegalInformationVSLegalAdviceGuidelines.pdf (last checked December 12,
2012). To take a quiz on questions that seek legal advice versus legal information see Pro Profs Quizmaker: Legal
Advice vs. Legal Information at http://www.proprofs.com/quiz-school/story.php?title=legal-advice-vs-legalinformation (last checked on Dec 19, 2012); Legal Information vs. Legal Advice: A Curriculum for Court
Employees, National Center for State Courts (May 2002) at
https://www.ncsconline.org/d_icm/programs/cedp/papers/Research_Papers_2002/ICM_Legal_InfoLegal_Advice.pd
f; Legal Information vs. Legal Advice: Guidelines and Instructions for Court Staff Who Work With Self-Represented
Litigants in Utah’s State Courts, Prepared by the Education Subcommittee of the Utah Judicial Council Standing
Committee on Resources for Self-Represented Parties (April 2010) at
http://www.co.washington.or.us/LawLibrary/upload/TF_Utah_Legal_Info-v-Advise.pdf; May I help you? Legal
Advice vs. Legal Information: A Resource Guide for Court Clerks, Judicial Council of California, Administrative
Office of the Courts and the Access and Fairness Advisory Committee (June 2004) at http://lri.lsc.gov/legalrepresentation/pro-se/articles-publications/may-i-help-you-legal-advice-vs-legal-information-resource-guide-courtclerks.

8