Opinion ID: 1775311
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: disclosure to the client

Text: Model Rule 7.5(d), provides: Lawyers may state or imply that they practice in a partnership or other organization only when that is the fact. The underlying policy of this rule is that a client is entitled to know who or what entity is representing the client. ABA Op. 88-356 at 9. A question therefore arises as to whether the client must be told that a temporary lawyer engaged by the firm is working on the client's matter as well as other information relating to the arrangement between the firm and the temporary lawyer. Relevant to the inquiry are Rule 1.2(a), requiring a lawyer to consult with the client as to the means by which the client's objectives are to be pursued, and Rule 1.4 relating to client communication. Id. at 9-10. A lawyer should explain a matter to the extent reasonably necessary to permit the client to make informed decisions regarding the representation.  Model Rule 1.4(b). The ABA opinion draws the distinction on the issue of disclosure between situations in which a temporary performs independent work for a client without close supervision by a client firm lawyer, and the situation where the temporary works under the direct supervision of the client firm lawyer. In the first instance, the ABA Committee would require disclosure to and consent by the ultimate client to representation by the temporary. In the latter case, however, disclosure would not be required. A client who retains a firm expects that the legal services will be rendered by lawyers and other personnel closely supervised by the firm. Client consent to the involvement of firm personnel . . . is inherent in the act of retaining the firm. ABA OP. 88-356 at 10. We cannot accept the ABA's distinctions and would recommend disclosure to the client of the firm's intention, whether at the commencement or during the course of representation, to use a temporary attorney service on the client's case, in any capacity, in order to allow the client to make an intelligent decision whether or not to consent to such an arrangement. Furthermore, if the client firm wishes to pass the agency or service fee on to the ultimate client, this fee should be separately identified when billed to the client. A client no more expects to pay for an employment agency than to pay for investigative or other extraordinary expenses. The client must be so informed. The next two areas of concern to the KBA and this Court were fully addressed by the ABA Ethics Committee. We therefore adopt the following selected portions of Formal Opinion 356 (1988).