Skip to main content

Supervision of Paralegal Closing a Residential Real Estate Refinancing

Adopted: October 19, 2001

Opinion rules that competent legal representation of a borrower requires the presence of the lawyer at the closing of a residential real estate refinancing. A nonlawyer may oversee the execution of documents outside the presence of the lawyer provided the lawyer adequately supervises the nonlawyer and is present at the closing conference to complete the transaction.

Inquiry:

99 Formal Ethics Opinion 13 rules that competent practice requires the presence of the closing lawyer at a residential real estate closing conference to explain the documents being executed, answer questions, and advocate for the client. A nonlawyer employee of the lawyer may oversee the execution of documents outside of the lawyer's presence; however, the closing lawyer must adequately supervise the nonlawyer and must be present at some time during the closing conference to complete the transaction.

When a homeowner refinances his or her residential property, there is a potential for harm to the interest of the homeowner from high interest rates, dissipation of equity, and refinancing pitfalls such as prepayment penalties and balloon notes. May a lawyer allow a nonlawyer employee to close a residential real estate refinancing if the lawyer is not present at the closing?

Opinion:

No. As with an initial purchase of residential property, the closing of a refinancing of residential property is the primary opportunity that a lawyer has to meet with the borrower, explain the refinancing documents, define the borrower's rights and obligations, and answer questions. These activities are the practice of law because the lawyer gives legal advice and opinion on the rights of the borrower. See 99 FEO 13. Therefore, competent representation requires that the closing lawyer must be present at the closing. Nevertheless, a lawyer may permit a nonlawyer employee to oversee the execution of the financing documents outside of the lawyer's presence. Nothing in this opinion is intended to infringe upon a lender's right to represent itself as provided in State v. Pledger, 257 N.C. 634, 127 S.E.2d 337 (1962).

Back to top