Ezel / Ethics Opinions / WSBA

Can a paralegal use the title 'Paralegal Advocate' on business cards, and what is the supervising lawyer's duty about it?

Short answer The committee concluded that 'Paralegal Advocate' is misleading and violates RPC 7.1 because 'advocate' has become synonymous with 'lawyer,' and that under RPC 5.3 the supervising lawyer must ensure the paralegal does not use the title.
Bar
WSBA
Issued
2007

Apply this to your situation

This page answers the general question as of 2007. Ask about yours and see what the current Washington Rules of Professional Conduct say for your facts, with citations.

Currency note: this opinion is from 2007
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 Not binding precedent.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) is the authoritative source for any reliance.

Plain-English summary

An attorney who hired a paralegal learned that the paralegal had previously used the title "Paralegal Advocate" and asked whether she could keep using it.

The committee concluded that identifying a paralegal or legal assistant as a "Paralegal Advocate" (or "Legal Assistant Advocate") is misleading, because "advocate" has become globally synonymous with "lawyer," and therefore violates RPC 7.1, just as calling the paralegal a "Paralegal Lawyer" would. It added that, because RPC 5.3 requires a lawyer with direct supervisory authority over a non-lawyer to ensure the non-lawyer's conduct is compatible with the lawyer's professional obligations, the inquiring lawyer has a duty to ensure the paralegal does not hold herself out as a "Paralegal Advocate."

In practice

Under the Washington rules as they stood at the time of the opinion, the committee treated the title as a communication about legal services governed by RPC 7.1's bar on misleading statements. Its reasoning was that "advocate" reads to the public as "lawyer," so attaching it to a non-lawyer's title misrepresents the person's status. The committee then located the supervising lawyer's responsibility in RPC 5.3: a lawyer who directly supervises a non-lawyer must ensure the non-lawyer's conduct is compatible with the lawyer's own obligations, which here means making sure the paralegal does not use the "Paralegal Advocate" designation.

Common questions

Q: Can a paralegal use "Paralegal Advocate" on a business card?

A: No. The committee concluded the term is misleading and violates RPC 7.1 because "advocate" has become synonymous with "lawyer."

Q: Why is "advocate" treated like "lawyer"?

A: Per the committee, "advocate" has become globally synonymous with "lawyer," so using it for a non-lawyer is misleading, just as "Paralegal Lawyer" would be.

Q: What must the supervising lawyer do?

A: Under RPC 5.3, the committee said the supervising lawyer must ensure the paralegal does not represent herself as a "Paralegal Advocate," because the lawyer must keep a supervised non-lawyer's conduct compatible with the lawyer's professional obligations.

Background and rules framework

The opinion interpreted Washington RPC 7.1 (Model Rule 7.1, false or misleading communications about a lawyer's services) and RPC 5.3 (Model Rule 5.3, responsibilities regarding non-lawyer assistants). The committee applied RPC 7.1 to the title itself and RPC 5.3 to fix the supervising lawyer's duty to prevent its use.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

  • Model Rule 7.1 / Washington RPC 7.1 (false or misleading communications)
  • Model Rule 5.3 / Washington RPC 5.3 (responsibilities regarding non-lawyer assistants)

See also

Source

Original opinion text

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

Advisory Opinion: 2174
Year Issued: 2007
RPC(s): RPC 7.1
Subject: a paralegal using the term "Paralegal Advocate" on business cards

An attorney who recently hired a paralegal learned that the paralegal had previously identified her position as that of a “Paralegal Advocate”. The inquirer wishes to know if it is ethically acceptable to continue the designation.

Identifying a paralegal or a legal assistant as a Paralegal Advocate or as a Legal Assistant Advocate is misleading as Advocate is a word that has become globally synonymous with “lawyer”, and, as such, it violates RPC 7.1 (just as the paralegal’s reference to him/herself as “Paralegal Lawyer” would). Because RPC 5.3 requires a lawyer having direct supervision over a non-lawyer to ensure that the actions of a non-lawyer assistant are compatible with the professional obligations of the lawyer, in this case, it is the duty of the inquiring lawyer to ensure that the paralegal does not represent him or herself as a “Paralegal Advocate”

What do the rules say today, for your facts?

This opinion is from 2007. Ezel checks the current Washington Rules of Professional Conduct against your situation and cites the rules it relies on.

Opens in Ezel Pro.

  • Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
  • Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
  • Chat, drafting and research in one workspace