Could a professor unlicensed in Vermont consult for a Vermont lawyer on client matters?
Apply this to your situation
This page answers the general question as of 1990. Ask about yours and see what the current Vermont Rules of Professional Conduct say for your facts, with citations.
Plain-English summary
A Vermont lawyer paid a law professor who was not licensed in Vermont for consultations on client legal issues. The request said some discussions involved client information but no client identity. The committee's conclusion assumed that no confidence or secret was disclosed.
The committee distinguished legal work performed directly for a client from consultation supplied to a licensed lawyer. It permitted the arrangement where the Vermont lawyer maintained client contact, supervised and verified the consultant’s work, and took full responsibility for advice and other work given to the client.
The committee said the Vermont lawyer should pay the professor rather than have the professor bill the client directly, in light of former DR 3-102’s fee-sharing restriction. Its answer assumed no client identity, confidence, or secret was revealed; disclosure of such information would require client consent after full disclosure.
Currency note
This opinion was issued in 1990 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 Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance.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: Was the professor’s consultation itself unauthorized practice?
A: No, on the stated arrangement where the Vermont lawyer supervised, verified, and owned the client-facing work.
Q: Who should pay the professor?
A: The Vermont lawyer, who could then bill the client for the support service.
Q: Could the lawyer reveal a client’s identity or secrets to the professor?
A: The opinion assumed no such disclosure; if it were needed, client consent after full disclosure was required.
Background and rules framework
The opinion applied former Canon 3, DR 3-101(B), EC 3-5, EC 3-6, and DR 3-102 to consultation by an unlicensed lawyer.
Citations and references
Vermont Code of Professional Responsibility:
- Canon 3; DR 3-101(B); EC 3-5; EC 3-6; DR 3-102.
Case cited:
- In Re Welch, 123 Vt. 180 (1962).
See also
- Vermont Ethics Op. 03-08: Nonlawyer preparing family-court filings
- Vermont Ethics Op. 99-03: Paralegal at lender closing
Source
- Landing page: VBA unauthorized practice opinions
- Original PDF: Vermont Advisory Opinion 90-02
- 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 1990. 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