Opinion 1861

I have been instructed by the Rules of Professional Conduct Committee to respond to your ethics inquiry #1861 concerning a possible conflict of interest when a paralegal from a private firm volunteers at a legal services clinic.

The Committee has reviewed your inquiry and determined the following:

There would not be a general conflict of interest between the lawyers who employed paralegals volunteering at the clinic and all clinic clients.

A conflict of interest could exist between a lawyer and a party with an adverse interest to the clinic client served by the paralegal regularly employed by that lawyer. There would not be a conflict of interest for that lawyer that would prevent him or her from providing legal services to clinic clients served by other staff provided that there are adequate screening mechanisms in place at the clinic to insure that the paralegal does not have access to information from or about other clients served by the clinic. It might even be possible for a lawyer to provide legal services to the person whom the lawyer’s paralegal had assisted at the clinic, provided that the lawyer’s paralegal complies with the requirements of RPC 7.2(c) and 7.3.

Both the clinic and the lawyer should insure compliance with RPC 1.6 and 5.3. While RPC 1.10 does not apply to paralegals, it may be referred to by way of analogy in insuring compliance with RPC 1.6 and RPC 5.3.

Advisory Opinions are provided for the education of the Bar and reflect the opinion of the Committee on Professional Ethics (CPE) or its predecessors. Advisory Opinions are provided pursuant to the authorization granted by the Board of Governors, but are not individually approved by the Board and do not reflect the official position of the Bar association. Laws other than the Washington State Rules of Professional Conduct may apply to the inquiry. The Committee's answer does not include or opine about any other applicable law other than the meaning of the Rules of Professional Conduct.