Ezel / Ethics Opinions / VTBAR

Could a law firm’s nonlawyer assistant represent its manufacturer client at Motor Vehicle Arbitration Board hearings?

Short answer Opinion 88-04 said the proposed appearances would be unauthorized practice of law and the firm would aid it under DR 3-101(A). The client’s ability to appear through its own employees did not authorize the firm’s employee to represent it.
Bar
VTBAR
Issued
1988
Source
View Original PDF

Apply this to your situation

This page answers the general question as of 1988. Ask about yours and see what the current Vermont Rules of Professional Conduct say for your facts, with citations.

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 Not binding precedent.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 as a PDF) is the authoritative source for any reliance.
View original ethics opinion (PDF)

Plain-English summary

A law firm represented an automobile manufacturer before Vermont’s Motor Vehicle Arbitration Board. Its legal assistant already prepared factual defenses and witnesses under lawyer supervision; the firm proposed sending the assistant to hearings instead of a lawyer where it saw no distinct legal issue.

The committee said appearing for the manufacturer before the Board involved legal claims, defenses, procedures, and professional legal judgment. The manufacturer could appear through its own employees, but that did not authorize a law firm’s unlicensed employee to represent it. Sending the assistant would aid unauthorized practice under DR 3-101(A).

The committee distinguished supervised research and preparation from representing the client at the formal hearing. Cost savings and the firm’s promise to oversee the assistant did not change the result.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1988 under Vermont's former Code of Professional Responsibility. The Vermont Supreme Court's rules history says the Rules of Professional Conduct replaced the Code and applied to lawyer conduct after September 1, 1999; the court later made comprehensive amendments in 2009. 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 Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance.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: Could the manufacturer appear through its own employee?

A: The opinion said the client could represent itself through its own employees, but that did not authorize the law firm’s nonlawyer employee to appear for it.

Q: Did lawyer supervision make the assistant’s hearing appearance permissible?

A: No. The committee treated representation at the Board as the practice of law.

Q: Could the assistant continue preparatory work?

A: The opinion described supervised case preparation and distinguished it from the proposed hearing representation.

Background and rules framework

The opinion applied former DR 3-101(A) and discussed EC 3-5, EC 3-4, and EC 3-3 on professional judgment and unauthorized practice.

Citations and references

Vermont Code of Professional Responsibility:

  • DR 3-101(A); EC 3-5; EC 3-4; EC 3-3.

Statutes cited:

  • 9 V.S.A. §§4170, 4172–4174, 4176–4177.

Other opinion cited:

  • ABA Formal Opinion 316 (1967).

See also

Source

What do the rules say today, for your facts?

This opinion is from 1988. 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