Could a Vermont firm represent a real estate client adverse to the spouse of its paralegal?
Apply this to your situation
This page answers the general question as of 1987. Ask about yours and see what the current Vermont Rules of Professional Conduct say for your facts, with citations.
Plain-English summary
A firm employed a paralegal as needed. The paralegal's spouse was a principal in local real estate transactions, and the firm anticipated representing clients on the other side. The firm proposed excluding the paralegal from those transactions.
The committee found that the paralegal's employment did not ordinarily affect the lawyers' professional judgment so as to disqualify the firm automatically. It required disclosure to the parties of the employment and family relationship, client consent, and protection of client confidences. The paralegal was to be screened from direct and indirect participation and from discussions of the matter.
The official archive listing for this PDF gives a mortgage-fee synopsis, but the linked PDF headed Opinion 87-15 concerns the paralegal's spouse. This summary follows the linked PDF.
Currency note
This opinion was issued in 1987, before Vermont's 1999 adoption of the Rules of Professional Conduct. Subsequent rule amendments or later opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance. Verify against current rules before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or requirement.
Common questions
Q: Was the firm automatically disqualified because of the paralegal's spouse?
A: No. The committee said the relationship ordinarily did not require automatic disqualification.
Q: What safeguards did the committee require?
A: It required disclosure and client consent, plus controls to keep the paralegal out of work and discussion on the transaction and protect client confidences.
Background and rules framework
The opinion discussed former DR 5-101(A) on lawyers' personal interests and EC 4-2 and EC 9-6 on staff access to confidential information and avoiding impropriety. It relied on Opinion 78-2 for screening controls.
Citations and references
Former Vermont disciplinary rules:
- DR 5-101(A).
Former Vermont ethical considerations:
- EC 4-2 and EC 9-6.
Other opinions cited:
- Vermont Opinions 79-20, 77-6, and 78-2.
See also
- Vermont Ethics Op. 84-02: Lawyer spouse of a broker
- Vermont Ethics Op. 87-03: Lawyer as title insurance agent
Source
- Landing page: VBA real estate opinions
- Original PDF: Vermont Advisory Opinion 87-15
- Source discrepancy: the landing page's 87-15 listing describes a mortgage on a client's home, while the linked PDF is headed “ADVISORY ETHICS OPINION 87-15” and concerns a paralegal's spouse.
- Rules history: Vermont Rules of Professional Conduct, “These rules apply to lawyer conduct after September 1, 1999.”
What do the rules say today, for your facts?
This opinion is from 1987. Ezel checks the current Vermont Rules of Professional Conduct against your situation and cites the rules it relies on.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace