Can a lawyer let a collection agency send debt letters over the lawyer's printed name from an office the agency staffs and runs?

Plain-English summary

The inquiry described a proposed arrangement with a collection-agency client. The agency would prepare debtor letters and present them to the lawyer with a computer list of debtor names, the creditor-client, and the amount claimed. The lawyer would then authorize the agency to send the letters out over the lawyer's printed name without ever physically seeing the actual letter. The letters would carry an office address identifying the office as the lawyer's law office, but that office would be maintained and run entirely by collection-agency employees, with the lawyer visiting only infrequently.

The committee concluded that, because the lawyer would not be in a position to do any independent investigation and would not physically be involved in the matters, what the collection agency would be doing would constitute the practice of law over the lawyer's name. It further concluded that implying the address and phone number on the letterhead were the lawyer's law office would be misleading to recipients, since a recipient who contacted that office would actually be speaking to an agency employee. The committee was of the opinion that the proposal would violate RPC 4.1(a) and RPC 8.4(a) and (c), and noted that earlier formal opinions addressed the same issue.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1987, before the Washington State Bar Association's adoption of the 2006 revisions to the Rules of Professional Conduct. 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 Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance.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: Can a collection agency send demand letters over a lawyer's name if the lawyer reviews the debtor list first?

A: No. The committee concluded that reviewing names and amounts on a computer list, without independent investigation or physical involvement in the matters, left the agency practicing law over the lawyer's name, which the committee treated as improper under RPC 8.4(a) and (c).

Q: Can a lawyer's letterhead show an office address that is actually staffed by the collection agency?

A: The committee concluded that doing so would be misleading under RPC 4.1(a) and 8.4(c), because a recipient who contacted the office would be speaking with an agency employee rather than the lawyer's law office.

Q: Does it matter that the lawyer never sees the individual letters?

A: Yes. The committee emphasized that the lawyer would authorize the letters without ever physically seeing the actual letter, which was part of why it found that the agency, not the lawyer, would be practicing law over the lawyer's name.

Background and rules framework

The opinion applied RPC 4.1(a) (truthfulness in statements to others, corresponding to ABA Model Rule 4.1) and RPC 8.4(a) and (c) (misconduct, including assisting a violation and conduct involving dishonesty or misrepresentation, corresponding to ABA Model Rule 8.4). The committee treated the agency's operation under the lawyer's name as the practice of law by the agency, and the law-office letterhead as a misrepresentation to letter recipients.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• ABA Model Rule 4.1 (truthfulness in statements to others); Washington RPC 4.1(a)
• ABA Model Rule 8.4 (misconduct); Washington RPC 8.4(a), 8.4(c)

Other opinions cited:

• Earlier WSBA formal opinions on the same issue (referenced but not numbered in the opinion)

See also

• WSBA Ethics Op. 1551: Assumed Name for Fee Collection
• WSBA Ethics Op. 1332: Fee Split With a Collection Agency
• WSBA Ethics Op. 953: Working With a Suspended Lawyer

Source

• Landing page: https://ao.wsba.org/print.aspx?ID=1125

Original opinion text

Reproduced from the official source for research purposes. The linked source is authoritative.

Advisory Opinion: 1080
Year Issued: 1987
RPC(s): RPC 4.1(a); 8.4(a); 8.4(c)
Subject: Assisting unauthorized practice of law; collection agency sending letters over lawyer's name and with collection agency's address

The Committee considered your inquiry regarding your representation of a collection agency. The Committee understood that your client has requested that a system be developed whereby they would prepare letters to debtors which would be presented to you along with a computer list showing the names of the debtors, the client who claims the debt, and the amount of the alleged obligation. You would then authorize the collection agency to send out the letters over your printed name, although you would never physically see the actual letter itself.

The letter would bear an office address identifying it as your law office. However, the office would be maintained by an employee of the collection agency. While you would infrequently visit the office, it would in fact be entirely run by employees of the collection agency.

The Committee was of the opinion that, although you would review the names and facts relating to these collections, you would not in fact have been in a position to do any independent investigation regarding them nor would you physically be involved in these matters. The Committee concluded that what the collection agency would be doing would constitute the practice of law over your name. The Committee was further of the opinion that it would be misleading to the recipient of the letter to imply that the address and phone number shown on the letterhead was in fact your law office since if the recipient of the letter contacted that office they would in fact be speaking to an employee of the collection agency. The Committee felt that such a proposal would violate Rules 4.1(a), 8.4(a) and (c) of the Rules of Professional Conduct. The Committee also noted that there are some earlier Formal Opinions which relate to this issue which they asked that I enclose with this letter.