Can a legal services agency cap the number of hours a lawyer spends on a pro bono representation?
Apply this to your situation
This page answers the general question as of 1999. Ezel answers yours: whether it's allowed on your facts, under the current rules of professional conduct in your state, with citations.
Plain-English summary
The inquiry concerned a legal services agency limiting the number of hours its lawyers spend on a pro bono representation. The committee concluded that the facts presented do not substantially change the prior inquiry, Inquiry 1827, and that the proposal may still violate RPC 1.1, as well as RPC 1.15 and 1.2.
The committee encouraged the inquirer to contact the WSBA Access to Justice Committee to develop a model consistent with the Rules of Professional Conduct.
Currency note
This opinion was issued in 1999, 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 Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance.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. In the 2006 revisions Washington renumbered its declining-or-terminating-representation rule (the former RPC 1.15) to RPC 1.16, tracking ABA Model Rule 1.16, so verify the current rule and citation before relying on it.
Common questions
Q: Can a legal services agency limit how many hours a lawyer spends on a pro bono case?
A: The committee concluded that the proposal may still violate RPC 1.1, 1.15, and 1.2, consistent with its prior inquiry 1827.
Q: What did the committee suggest the agency do?
A: It encouraged the inquirer to contact the WSBA Access to Justice Committee to develop a model consistent with the Rules of Professional Conduct.
Background and rules framework
The opinion treated the hour cap as potentially implicating Washington RPC 1.1 (competence, MR 1.1), RPC 1.2 (scope of representation and limited objectives, MR 1.2), and RPC 1.15 (the rule then numbered 1.15 in Washington, declining or terminating representation, corresponding to ABA Model Rule 1.16). It built on the committee's earlier inquiry, Inquiry 1827, addressing the same kind of proposal.
Citations and references
Rules of Professional Conduct:
- ABA Model Rule 1.1 (competence); Washington RPC 1.1
- ABA Model Rule 1.2 (scope of representation); Washington RPC 1.2
- ABA Model Rule 1.16 (declining or terminating representation); Washington RPC 1.15
Other opinions cited:
- WSBA Inquiry 1827 (legal services agency capping pro bono hours)
See also
- WA Ethics Op. 1827: Hour Caps on Pro Bono Cases
- WA Ethics Op. 1545: Pro Bono Debtor Clinic Conflict
- WA Ethics Op. 1289: Pro Bono Adverse to Firm Clients
Source
- Landing page: https://ao.wsba.org/print.aspx?ID=1089
Original opinion text
Reproduced from the official source for research purposes. The linked source is authoritative.
Advisory Opinion: 1895
Year Issued: 1999
RPC(s): RPC 1.1; 1.2; 1.15; Informal Opinion 1827
Subject: Legal services agency limiting number of hours spent on pro bono representation
The facts presented by the inquirer do not substantially change the prior inquiry (Inquiry 1827) and the proposal may still violate RPC 1.1, as well as RPC 1.15 and 1.2. The committee encourages the inquirer to contact the WSBA Access to Justice Committee to develop a model consistent with the Rules of Professional Conduct.
Get today's answer for your situation
You just read a 1999 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.