Ezel / Ethics Opinions / VTBAR

Must a Vermont lawyer pay a medical provider from settlement funds without a proven lien or payment agreement?

Short answer Opinion 95-01 found no ethics violation when the lawyer paid known claimants and the client but did not pay a chiropractor who had shown no enforceable lien or agreement and had received no payment promise from counsel.
Bar
VTBAR
Issued
1995
Source
View Original PDF

Apply this to your situation

This page answers the general question as of 1995. 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 Not binding precedent.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

After a personal injury settlement, the lawyer paid health care providers who had filed written claims and distributed the remaining funds to the client. A chiropractor later asserted a claim, but the predecessor lawyer's file contained no request for payment from the settlement, and no proof of a payment undertaking was supplied when requested.

The committee found no ethics violation on those facts. It distinguished a situation in which the original lawyer had promised the provider reimbursement or led the provider to expect it; the lawyer would have to honor such representations. The committee concluded that the requesting lawyer had no obligation to arrange payment to the chiropractor under the facts presented.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1995 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 rule 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 lawyer violate the Code by paying the client without paying the chiropractor?

A: No. The committee found no violation when no enforceable lien, agreed payment, or lawyer's representation to reimburse the chiropractor had been shown.

Q: Would a lawyer's promise to the provider matter?

A: Yes. The opinion says that if the original lawyer promised reimbursement or led the chiropractor to expect it, that lawyer had to perform according to the representation.

Q: Did the file show a payment claim before distribution?

A: The committee described no correspondence from the chiropractor seeking settlement payment, and the requested proof of an earlier claim had not been supplied.

Background and rules framework

The opinion applied Vermont's former Code of Professional Responsibility and cited DR 7-102 in a footnote on avoiding misrepresentation. It also cited Alaska Bar Association Ethics Opinion 80-1. Its conclusion turned on the lack of a shown lien, payment agreement, or reimbursement promise.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

  • Vermont Code of Professional Responsibility DR 7-102

Other opinions cited:

  • Alaska Bar Association Ethics Opinion 80-1, cited on duties to a nonclient

See also

Source

What do the rules say today, for your facts?

This opinion is from 1995. 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