Ezel / Ethics Opinions / VTBAR

Could Vermont agency lawyers enforce child support against a parent who had used the agency's payment service?

Short answer Opinion 89-08 permits agency-only representation on the stated agreements because neither parent's administrative dealings created an attorney-client relationship with the agency lawyers.
Bar
VTBAR
Issued
1989
Source
View Original PDF

Apply this to your situation

This page answers the general question as of 1989. 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 Not binding precedent.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 state department had handled support payments for a noncustodial parent and later received an assignment of support rights from the custodial parent. Its lawyers then considered enforcement against the noncustodial parent. The agency legal unit said it had no contact with either parent when those administrative agreements were made and represented only the department.

The committee distinguished the agency's payment and assignment contracts from legal representation by its attorneys. The noncustodial parent's information had gone to an administrative unit, not to a lawyer in a professional relationship. The custodial parent's assignment also said agency lawyers would not represent that parent and left litigation control with the department. Assuming the parents understood those terms, former DR 4-101 confidentiality and DR 5-105 differing-interests restrictions based on a parent-client relationship did not bar the agency's lawyers from proceeding.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1989 under Vermont's former Code of Professional Responsibility. The Vermont Supreme Court's rules history states that the Rules of Professional Conduct applied to lawyer conduct after September 1, 1999. Later amendments or opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this opinion as historical context and verify current rules before relying on it.

Common questions

Q: Did the noncustodial parent's payment-service contract create a lawyer-client relationship?

A: No. The committee found the parent dealt with the agency's cash receipts unit, and agency lawyers had no contact with the parent in that transaction.

Q: Did assignment of support rights make the custodial parent an agency-lawyer client?

A: The opinion said no on the stated, understood terms, which disclaimed legal representation of the parent and reserved control of enforcement to the department.

Background and rules framework

The committee contrasted earlier agency opinions involving possible dual representation and applied former DR 4-101(A) and DR 5-105 to the absence of a parent-lawyer relationship here.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

  • Vermont Code of Professional Responsibility DR 4-101(A) and DR 5-105

Other opinions cited:

  • Vermont Opinions 86-7 and 87-19, agency and individual representation

See also

Source

What do the rules say today, for your facts?

This opinion is from 1989. 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