Can a lawyer offer unbundled, limited-scope family law services and later take a new limited engagement from the same client?

Plain-English summary

The committee described "unbundled legal services" in the family law context as a party engaging an attorney for limited measures, such as helping prepare initial pleadings and performing child-support calculations, without either the lawyer or the client being obligated to the other for the duration of the dissolution or modification proceedings. The committee noted this would enable the attorney to charge a reasonable flat fee for defined services and the client to control and budget for expenses.

The committee advised that, assuming both the original and subsequent representation agreements comply with RPC 1.2 and 1.5, RPC 1.8(a) does not apply to a separate, subsequent, limited engagement of the same attorney by the same former client.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1997, 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 Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance.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. Washington's cited rules correspond to ABA Model Rules 1.2 (scope of representation), 1.5 (fees), and 1.8 (conflicts; specific rules, including business transactions with a client under 1.8(a)).

Common questions

Q: Are unbundled, limited-scope family law services permitted?

A: The committee described and accepted the unbundled model of engaging an attorney for defined limited measures without ongoing obligation, assuming the agreements comply with RPC 1.2 and 1.5.

Q: Does the business-transaction rule, RPC 1.8(a), apply to a later limited engagement?

A: No. The committee concluded that, assuming RPC 1.2 and 1.5 are met, RPC 1.8(a) does not apply to a separate, subsequent, limited engagement of the same attorney by the same former client.

Q: Can the lawyer charge a flat fee for the defined services?

A: The committee noted the model would enable the attorney to charge a reasonable flat fee for defined services and the client to control and budget for expenses.

Background and rules framework

The opinion applied RPC 1.2 (scope of representation, which permits limiting the objectives of a representation), RPC 1.5 (fees), and RPC 1.8(a) (the business-transaction conflict rule), corresponding to the like-numbered ABA Model Rules, to unbundled family law services. The committee tied the validity of the limited engagements to RPC 1.2 and 1.5 compliance and concluded that a later, separate limited engagement of the same lawyer by the same former client does not trigger RPC 1.8(a).

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• ABA Model Rule 1.2 (scope of representation); Washington RPC 1.2
• ABA Model Rule 1.5 (fees); Washington RPC 1.5
• ABA Model Rule 1.8 (conflicts; business transactions with a client); Washington RPC 1.8(a)

See also

• WA Ethics Op. 1721: Stop-Work Clause for Unpaid Fees
• WA Ethics Op. 1751: Auto-Withdrawal for Unpaid Fees

Source

• Landing page: https://ao.wsba.org/print.aspx?ID=827

Original opinion text

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

Advisory Opinion: 1763
Year Issued: 1997
RPC(s): RPC 1.2; 1.5; 1.8(a)
Subject: Unbundled legal services; limited representation; subsequent representation of former client

"Unbundled legal services" [in the family law context] refers to the concept of a party engaging an attorney to take limited measures, such as helping to prepare initial pleadings and perform child-support calculations, without either the lawyer or the client being obligated to the other for the duration of the dissolution or modification proceedings. This measure would enable the attorney to charge a reasonable flat fee for defined services, and the client to control and budget for expenses. The Committee advises that assuming that both the original and subsequent representation agreements comply with RPC 1.2 and 1.5, RPC 1.8(a) does not apply to a separate, subsequent, limited engagement of the same attorney by the same former client.