Outsourcing Legal Support Services
Adopted: April 25, 2008
Opinion rules that a lawyer may outsource limited legal support services to a foreign lawyer or a nonlawyer (collectively "foreign assistants") provided the lawyer properly selects and supervises the foreign assistants, ensures the preservation of client confidences, avoids conflicts of interests, discloses the outsourcing, and obtains the client's advanced informed consent.
Inquiry:
May a lawyer ethically outsource legal support services abroad, if the individual providing the services is either a nonlawyer or a lawyer not admitted to practice in the United States (collectively "foreign assistants")?
Opinion:
The Ethics Committee has previously determined that a lawyer may use nonlawyer assistants in his or her practice, and that the assistants do not have to be employees of the lawyer's firm or physically present in the lawyer's office. See, e.g., RPC 70, RPC 216, 99 FEO 6, 2002 FEO 9. The previous opinions emphasize that the lawyer's use of nonlawyer assistants must comply with the Rules of Professional Conduct. Generally, the ethical considerations when a lawyer uses foreign assistants are similar to the considerations that arise when a lawyer uses the services of any nonlawyer assistant.
Pursuant to RPC 216, a lawyer has a duty under the Rules of Professional Conduct to take reasonable steps to ascertain that a nonlawyer assistant is competent; to provide the nonlawyer assistant with appropriate supervision and instruction; and to continue to use the lawyer's own independent professional judgment, competence, and personal knowledge in the representation of the client. See also Rule 1.1, Rule 5.3, Rule 5.5. The opinion further states that the lawyer's duty to provide competent representation mandates that the lawyer be responsible for the work product of nonlawyer assistants. See also Rule 5.3.
2002 FEO 9 states that, in any situation where a lawyer delegates a task to a nonlawyer assistant, the lawyer must determine that delegation is appropriate after having evaluated the complexity of the transaction, the degree of difficulty of the task, the training and ability of the nonlawyer, the client's sophistication and expectations, and the course of dealing with the client. See also Rule 1.1 and Rule 5.3.
Therefore, as long as the lawyer's use of the nonlawyer assistant's services is in accordance with the Rules of Professional Conduct, the location of the nonlawyer assistant is irrelevant. Rule 5.3(b) requires lawyers having supervisory authority over the work of nonlawyers to make "reasonable efforts" to ensure that the nonlawyer's conduct is compatible with the professional obligations of the lawyer.
When contemplating the use of foreign assistants, the lawyer's initial ethical duty is to exercise due diligence in the selection of the foreign assistant. RPC 216 states that, before contracting with a nonlawyer assistant, a lawyer must take reasonable steps to determine that the nonlawyer assistant is competent. 2002 FEO 9 states that the lawyer must evaluate the training and ability of the nonlawyer in determining whether delegation of a task to the nonlawyer is appropriate. The lawyer must ensure that the foreign assistant is competent to perform the work requested, understands and will comply with the ethical rules that govern a lawyer's conduct, and will act in a manner that is compatible with the lawyer's professional obligations.
In the selection of the foreign assistant, the lawyer should consider obtaining background information about any intermediary employing the foreign assistants; obtaining the foreign assistants' resumes; conducting reference checks; interviewing the foreign assistants to ascertain their suitability for the particular assignment; obtaining a work product sample; and confirming that appropriate channels of communication are present to ensure that supervision can be provided in a timely and ongoing manner. Individual cases may require special or further measures. See New York City Bar Ass'n. Formal Opinion 2006-3; San Diego County Bar Ass'n. Ethics Opinion 2007-1.
Another ethical concern is the lawyer's ability adequately to supervise the foreign assistants. Pursuant to RPC 216, to supervise properly the work delegated to the foreign assistants, the lawyer must possess sufficient knowledge of the specific area of law. The lawyer must also ensure that the assignment is within the foreign assistant's area of competency. In supervising the foreign assistant, the lawyer must review the foreign assistant's work on an ongoing basis to ensure its quality; have ongoing communication with the foreign assistant to ensure that the assignment is understood and that the foreign assistant is discharging the assignment in accordance with the lawyer's directions and expectations; and review thoroughly all work-product of foreign assistants to ensure that it is accurate, reliable, and in the client's interest. The lawyer has an ongoing duty to exercise his or her professional judgment and skill to maintain the level of supervision necessary to advance and protect the client's interest.
If physical separation, language barriers, differences in time zones, or inadequate communication channels do not allow a reasonable and adequate level of supervision to be maintained over the foreign assistant's work, the lawyer should not retain the foreign assistant to provide services.
A lawyer must retain at all times the duty to exercise his or her independent judgment on the client's behalf and cannot abdicate that role to any assistant. A lawyer who utilizes foreign assistants will be held responsible for any of the foreign assistants' work-product used by the lawyer. See Rule 5.3. A lawyer may use foreign assistants for administrative support services such as document assembly, accounting, and clerical support. A lawyer may also use foreign assistants for limited legal support services such as reviewing documents; conducting due diligence; drafting contracts, pleadings, and memoranda of law; and conducting legal research. Foreign assistants may not exercise independent legal judgment in making decisions on behalf of a client. Additionally, a lawyer may not permit any foreign assistant to provide any legal advice or services directly to the client to assure that the lawyer is not assisting another person, or a corporation, in the unauthorized practice of law. See Rule 5.5(d). The limitations on the type of legal services that can be outsourced, in conjunction with the selection and supervisory requirements associated with the use of foreign assistants, insures that the client is competently represented. See Rule 5.5(d). Nevertheless, when outsourcing legal support services, lawyers need to be mindful of the prohibitions on unauthorized practice of law in Chapter 84 of the General Statutes and on the prohibition on aiding the unauthorized practice of law in Rule 5.5(d).
Another significant ethical concern is the protection of client confidentiality. A lawyer has a professional obligation to protect and preserve the confidences of a client against disclosure by the lawyer or other persons who are participating in the representation of the client or who are subject to the lawyer's supervision. See Rule 1.6, cmt. [17]. When utilizing foreign assistants, the lawyer must ensure that procedures are in place to minimize the risk that confidential information might be disclosed. See RPC 133. Included in such procedures should be an effective conflict-checking procedure. See RPC 216. The lawyer must make certain that the outsourcing firm and the foreign assistants working on the particular client matter are aware that the lawyer's professional obligations require that there be no breach of confidentiality in regard to client information. The lawyer also must use reasonable care to select a mode of communication that will best maintain any confidential information that might be conveyed in the communication. See RPC 215.
Finally, the lawyer has an ethical obligation to disclose the use of foreign, or other, assistants and to obtain the client's written informed consent to the outsourcing. In the absence of a specific understanding between the lawyer and client to the contrary, the reasonable expectation of the client is that the lawyer retained by the client, using the resources within the lawyer's firm, will perform the requested legal services. See Rule 1.4, 2002 FEO 9; San Diego County Bar Ass'n. Ethics Opinion 2007-1.