Can a lawyer sign demand letters and pleadings prepared by a collection agency client, where the agency keeps the records and the lawyer keeps no case files?

Plain-English summary

The inquiry described a lawyer who proposed to represent a high-volume collection agency. The agency would keep computerized records on each debtor; the lawyer would not maintain individual case files but would keep copies of correspondence and pleadings delivered to his office, could review files at the client's office or have them sent over, would sign demand letters and pleadings the client prepared from forms he drafted or approved, and would review a printout of the computer record before signing, returning signed documents to the client without keeping copies.

The committee was of the opinion that the lawyer could enter the relationship as described, provided that he knew from the facts in each case that the debt was owing, reviewed each document before it was presented and signed it before it was sent to the debtor or filed with the court, and exercised his own independent judgment in each case. The committee added that the lawyer would be required to disclose his relationship with his law firm on the pleadings and correspondence.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1989, before the Washington State Bar Association's adoption of the 2006 revisions to the Washington 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 Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance.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: Could the lawyer sign documents the collection agency prepared?

A: Under this 1989 opinion, yes, but only after reviewing each document and signing it before it was sent or filed, and only when he knew the debt was owing.

Q: What kept the arrangement from being improper delegation?

A: The committee conditioned it on the lawyer exercising his own independent judgment in each case, rather than letting the agency's nonlawyer staff effectively practice law.

Q: Did the lawyer have to disclose anything on the documents?

A: Yes. The committee said he had to disclose his relationship with his law firm on the pleadings and correspondence.

Background and rules framework

RPC 2.1 requires independent professional judgment; RPC 5.3 governs a lawyer's responsibility for nonlawyer assistants; and RPC 5.5 addresses the unauthorized practice of law. These are Washington's versions of ABA Model Rules 2.1, 5.3, and 5.5. The committee combined them: the lawyer's case-by-case review and independent judgment, plus disclosure of the firm relationship, were the conditions that kept the high-volume signing arrangement from delegating legal judgment to the agency's nonlawyer operation.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• ABA Model Rule 2.1 (independent professional judgment)
• ABA Model Rule 5.3 (responsibilities regarding nonlawyer assistants)
• ABA Model Rule 5.5 (unauthorized practice of law)
• Washington RPC 2.1; RPC 5.3; RPC 5.5

See also

• WA Ethics Op. 1250: Candor in Ex Parte Sentencing

Source

• Landing page: https://ao.wsba.org/print.aspx?ID=341

Original opinion text

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

[A lawyer proposed representing a high volume collection agency. The collection agency would keep computerized records regarding each debtor. The lawyer would not maintain individual case files, but would keep copies of all correspondence and pleadings delivered to his office. The lawyer would be able to review individual files at his client's office, or ask that a file be delivered to his office. The lawyer would sign demand letters and pleadings prepared by his client, based on forms drafted or approved by the lawyer. The lawyer would review a printout of the client's computer record before signing such documents. The lawyer would return signed documents to the client and not retain copies.] The Committee reviewed your inquiry regarding your relationship with a collection agency. The Committee is of the opinion that you could enter into the relationship as described by you provided that you know from the facts in each case that the debt is owing; you review before it is presented, and sign each before it is sent to the debtor or filed with the court; and that you exercise your own independent judgment in each case. Further the Committee was of the opinion that you would be required to disclose your relationship with your law firm on pleadings and correspondence.