Ezel / Ethics Opinions / WISBAR
WISBAR 1995

Can a law firm send a paralegal, instead of a lawyer, to attend a real estate closing on a client's behalf?

Short answer: The opinion concluded that a properly trained paralegal may attend a real estate closing on a client's behalf where a firm lawyer has reviewed the documents, the paralegal gives no legal advice, and the client consents. Appearing in a representative capacity at a closing is not per se unauthorized practice; the limits are that the paralegal must give no legal advice or opinions, the lawyer's competence duty must still be met, and the paralegal must be properly trained and supervised under the nonlawyer-assistant rule.

Apply this to your situation

This page answers the general question as of 1995. Ezel answers yours: whether it's allowed on your facts, under the current rules of professional conduct in your state, with citations.

Currency note: this opinion is from 1995
Subsequent statutory amendments, court decisions, or later opinions or rule amendments may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current legal advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or remedy mentioned here.
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 Not binding precedent.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

Opinion E-95-3 asked whether a paralegal employed by a law firm may attend a real estate closing on behalf of a client where a firm lawyer has already reviewed the closing documents, the paralegal will provide no legal advice or opinion at the closing, the client will not otherwise be represented there, and the client consents. The committee observed that it is common and accepted for parties to appear at closings without counsel and to be represented by nonlawyer employees or real estate brokers, so participating in a representative capacity at a closing is not per se the unauthorized practice of law. Unauthorized-practice problems arise when a nonlawyer gives legal advice or opinions during a closing, which nonlawyer representatives should scrupulously avoid. With that caution, the committee concluded it is permissible for a properly trained paralegal to attend a closing on the client's behalf under the stated conditions.

The committee grounded the result in SCR 20:1.2(a) and 20:1.4(b), which give the client authority over the objectives of the representation and call for the lawyer to consult about means; the comment to SCR 20:1.2 notes the lawyer should defer to the client about expenses, and assigning paralegals rather than lawyers to suitable tasks can hold down fees while still providing high-quality service. Whether using a paralegal at a particular closing is appropriate then depends on whether the lawyer's duty of competence under SCR 20:1.1 can be discharged through the paralegal and whether the lawyer has met the responsibilities for nonlawyer assistants under SCR 20:5.3 (see also SCR 20:5.5(b)). That means the paralegal must be properly trained, instructed, and supervised, and the particular closing must be unlikely to involve issues requiring a lawyer's presence; not all closings will meet that standard, so care and diligence are required before assigning a paralegal.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1995, before Wisconsin's July 1, 2007 adoption of the revised Rules of Professional Conduct (the state's Ethics 2000 update). 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 mentioned here.

Common questions

Q: Is it unauthorized practice for a paralegal to attend a closing for a client?

A: Not per se. The committee concluded that appearing in a representative capacity at a real estate closing is not itself the unauthorized practice of law, since parties commonly appear through nonlawyer representatives.

Q: What turns it into unauthorized practice?

A: Giving legal advice. The committee concluded that unauthorized-practice issues arise when a nonlawyer provides legal advice or opinions at the closing, which the paralegal must scrupulously avoid.

Q: What conditions must the firm meet?

A: Lawyer review, no legal advice, and client consent, plus competence and supervision. The committee concluded the lawyer's competence duty (SCR 20:1.1) must be dischargeable through the paralegal and the supervision duties under SCR 20:5.3 must be met.

Q: Can a paralegal be sent to any closing?

A: No. The committee concluded that the closing must be unlikely to involve issues requiring a lawyer's presence, and that care and diligence are needed before deciding a paralegal is appropriate.

Background and rules framework

The opinion interpreted SCR 20:1.2(a) / Model Rule 1.2 (the client's authority over objectives, and deference on expenses) and SCR 20:1.4(b) / Model Rule 1.4 (communication) to support cost-effective use of paralegals, and conditioned the practice on SCR 20:1.1 / Model Rule 1.1 (competence) and SCR 20:5.3 / Model Rule 5.3 (responsibilities regarding nonlawyer assistants), with reference to SCR 20:5.5(b) / Model Rule 5.5 (unauthorized practice).

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

  • Wis. SCR 20:1.2(a) / Model Rule 1.2 (objectives; deference on expenses)
  • Wis. SCR 20:1.4(b) / Model Rule 1.4 (communication)
  • Wis. SCR 20:1.1 / Model Rule 1.1 (competence)
  • Wis. SCR 20:5.3 / Model Rule 5.3 (nonlawyer assistants)
  • Wis. SCR 20:5.5(b) / Model Rule 5.5 (unauthorized practice)

See also

Source

Get today's answer for your situation

You just read a 1995 opinion on this question. Ezel checks the current rules of professional conduct in your state and answers your specific situation, with citations.

Opens in Ezel Pro. Every answer cites the rules it relies on.