OUTSOURCING LAW

Insights on Effective Outsourcing from Bierce & Kenerson, P.C.


Home About Us Selecting Your Attorney Sponsors Careers Register Survey Contact Us Store Contribute an Article
 

Subscribe to Our
Newsletter:
Please Enter your
E-mail:
 

Text  HTML
AOL

Search Site:  



EVENTS

Seminars & Conferences

OUTSOURCED MANAGED
SERVICES
Call Centers
Service Level Management
Human Resources
Engineering
Debt/Tax Collection
Information Technology (IT)


WHITE PAPERS

Business Process Transformation:
Legal and Business Issues in Business Renewal and Sourcing Strategy

COMMUNITIES

Customer's Environment

Service Provider's Environment
Consultant's Role
Lawyer's Role

BUSINESS TOPICS
What is Outsourcing?
Why Should We Outsource?
When Not to Outsource
Definitions / Glossary
F.A.Q.S.
Economics
Basic Principles
Getting Started (New Service Providers)

Getting Started (Enterprise Customers)

Types of Outsourced Processes
Decision-making Process
Life Cycles / Phases
Deal Structures
Pricing
Best Practices
Failed Deals
Advanced Strategies
Trends
Venture Capitalists and Outsourcing
Business and Legal Factors
Unique Circumstances; Deal Timing
Viability

LEGAL TOPICS
Risk Management
Battle of Forms
Intellectual Property
Privacy Law
Human Resources
Taxation
Legislation
Compliance
Disputes
Litigation
Bankruptcy
International
Corporate Governance and Sarbanes-Oxley Act

RESOURCES
Humor in Outsourcing
Articles
Experts
Links
Newsletter
Case Studies
Press Room

SITE TOOLS
Search
Translate
Contact Us

SITE RULES
Privacy Policy
Terms of Access and Use
Client's Bill of Rights
Client's Confidential
Communications

 

The Unauthorized Practice of the Law: 
What the Buyer Should Know about "Legal Drafting" and other Services by Non-Lawyers

© 2005 Bierce & Kenerson, P.C.  All rights reserved.

    UPL.  The definition of "unauthorized practice of law" ("UPL") has bedeviled legislators, courts, lawyers and non-lawyers since the legal profession became regulated.  Outsourcing service providers and even consultants may be practicing law, with various consequences.   

    ABA's Proposed Definition.   In 2002, the American Bar Association proposed a comprehensive definition to avoid confusion:

    The practice of law consists of "the application of legal principles and judgment with regards to the circumstances or objectives of a person that requires the knowledge and skill of a person trained in the law."    As a corollary, "a person is presumed to be practicing law when engaging in any of the following conduct on behalf of another:

  1. Giving advice or counsel to persons as to their legal rights or responsibilities or to those of others;

  2. Selecting, drafting, or completing legal documents or agreements that affect the legal rights of a person;

  3. Representing a person before an adjudicative body, including but not limited to, preparing or filing documents or conducting discovery; or

  4. Negotiating legal rights or responsibilities on behalf of a person."  ABA Task Force on the Model Definition of the Practice of Law, Proposed Model Definition of the Practice  of Law, Sections (b)(1) and (c) (Sept. 18, 2002).

    Federal Trade Commission's Views.  In response, the Federal Trade Commission submitted comments to the ABA's Task Force on the Model Definition of the Practice of Law.   The FTC argued that such a definition was too broad, too anti-competitive and was a disservice to the public.  It noted that, in court decisions, non-lawyers have been allowed to perform activities usually performed by lawyers if those activities are incidental to the profession or business of the nonlawyer.  Another judicial exception may exist for the preparation of simple or easy forms, including a simple income tax return.    FTC letter to ABA Task Force, Dec. 20, 2002.

    What the Corporate Client Should Know about UPL in the Outsourcing Context.   Assuming that non-lawyers will be permitted to engage in some or even all of the activities identified in the ABA's now abandoned model definition, what should the consumer of legal services know about the difference?   What if a consultant is preparing all the documents for review by in-house legal counsel?  In general, the in-house attorney exposes himself or herself to  professional liability by being the sole lawyer on a transaction where the in-house lawyer lacks the experience to make informed legal judgments.

Factor

Lawyer

Nonlawyer

Education.

Regulated.  Minimum curriculum and bar examination as well as Continuing Legal Education requirement.

No requirement.

Familiarity with local laws.

Regulated.

No requirement

Conflicts of interest.

Regulated.  Code of Ethics requires avoidance of representation of current (and, in certain instances, former) clients with conflicts of interest. 

No requirement.  In practice, some consultants avoid conflicts by never representing service providers.  However, taking advertising money or fees for training a service provider in the consultant's methodology may create a conflict that should be disclosed to enterprise customers and expressly waived.

Confidentiality.

Attorney-client communications and attorney "work product" (reflecting the analysis by the lawyer of the client's rights and remedies) are protected by legal privilege.  This prevents disclosure in court, unless waived by the client.

Confidentiality agreement may be equivalent, but does not protect from disclosure in court.  Disgruntled employees or shareholders and regulators therefore have access to consulting advice in a litigation context.

Liability for mistakes in advice on the law.

Malpractice liability is generally unlimited but can be applicable only to the lawyer and his firm and not all partners personally.  In some jurisdictions (e.g., the Netherlands), a lawyer may limit liability by posting a public notice of limits.  The attorney-client services agreement may limit certain elements of liability, subject to an overriding prohibition under public policy.

No malpractice liability.  However, consultants may be liable for "errors and omissions," subject to the limitations on their liability that may be set forth in the consulting agreement with the client. Consultants claiming to be "experts" or to have "broad experience" will be held to a high standard of care for making mistakes.

Right of Board of Directors to rely upon advice.

Clear. 

Unclear.  Where the consultant claims to be an expert, the Board may rely upon the expert, with resulting legal liability for mistakes at the level of an expert.

Personal liability of in-house attorney for mistakes in advice on the law.

No personal malpractice where in-house lawyer is relying upon expertise of outside legal counsel, unless the in-house counsel contradicts or exercises specific substantive controls over decisions.

In-house lawyer is liable for malpractice.  Even if the consultant's employees are lawyers, the consulting agreement will ordinarily warn the client that the consultant is not giving legal advice, so the in-house lawyer is not able to rely upon the legal expertise of the consultant's employed lawyers.

Impact of legal liability issues affecting the "practice of law" upon the outsourcing transaction.

In-house lawyers acting alone expose the companies to errors and omissions that could affect regulatory compliance and liability to shareholders, employees, supply-chain partners and others with whom the corporate enterprise has business or legal connections.

The consultant should recommend hiring an experienced outsourcing lawyer and provide a warning that it is not providing legal advice.  The warning should be as extensive as possible to mitigate the risk of the consultant's assuming liability for "legal advice" or for achieving benefits or mitigating risks.

Further reading:
Consultants in Outsourcing
Lawyers in Outsourcing
Outsourced Legal Research
Outsourced Bankruptcy Petition Preparation

Home SEARCH TRANSLATE REGISTER PRIVACY POLICY TERMS OF ACCESS AND USE Contact Us
Copyright 2001-2007 by Outsourcing Law Global  LLC. All rights reserved.  Attorney Advertising