Ethics Opinions

Print opinion

Back to ethics opinions search

RPC 3

April 18, 1986

Lawyer as Trustee


Opinion rules that lawyer may act as Trustee after having represented the seller.


Inquiry:


Attorney A is the Trustee under a Purchase Money Deed of Trust securing a Purchase Money Note representing part of the purchase price of a tract of land sold by Seller to Buyer. Attorney A represented Seller in the negotiations concerning the Note and Deed of Trust prior to closing. Attorney B represented Buyer throughout these negotiations and continues to do so. Attorney A was named as Trustee in the Purchase Money Deed of Trust, which was duly recorded.


Subsequently, Seller instructed Attorney A to commence foreclosure proceedings as Trustee, which Attorney A did. Attorney A instructed Seller to retain separate counsel. Seller is now represented by Attorney C. Buyer was served with notice of the foreclosure proceeding, and a hearing was duly held before the Clerk of Superior Court. As Trustee, Attorney A took no active role at the hearing. Attorney C presented the evidence on behalf of the Seller while Attorney B, representing Buyer, contested the foreclosure, disputing that default existed and arguing for a different interpretation of the documents.


At the foreclosure hearing, Attorney B filed a Motion to have Attorney A disqualified and removed as Trustee, citing Attorney A's prior representation of Seller at closing, his continued representation of Seller thereafter, his participation in negotiation of the documents now in dispute, a general appearance of impropriety, and an alleged duty of the Trustee to determine the existence of default in an impartial manner.


Does Attorney A, as Trustee, in fact have a duty to investigate the facts supporting the alleged existence of default, or make any determination of default in such capacity, other than his ministerial duties involving commencement of the proceeding, service on the appropriate parties, and conducting the public sale as so ordered by the Court? Under these circumstances, must Attorney A resign as Trustee from a contested foreclosure hearing by reason of his prior representation of Seller at closing, his participation in the negotiation of the documents in dispute, his subsequent continual representation of the Seller on other unrelated matters, or a general appearance of impropriety by reason of his prior representation of Seller?


Opinion:


Precise definition of the duties of the Trustee require a legal interpretation, not within the realm of the Ethics Committee or the North Carolina State Bar. Prior opinions considering the situation of the attorney who represented one of the parties to a transaction and who is also Trustee have required the attorney either to resign as Trustee if he wishes to represent his client in a contested foreclosure proceeding or related proceedings or to continue serving as Trustee without representing any party once the foreclosure proceeding becomes contested, in the foreclosure proceeding itself or in related proceedings. See CPRs 305, 297, 220, 201, 166, 137, and 94. These CPRs have recognized that the Trustee owes a duty of impartiality to both parties which is inconsistent with representing one of the parties in a contested proceeding. However, no prior opinion has held that the Trustee may not serve as Trustee because of prior representation of one of the parties where he does not continue to represent either party in the contested foreclosure or related proceedings. Generally, when an attorney is required to withdraw from representation or from a fiduciary role, it is either because of concerns of confidences of the client under Rule 4 and its predecessors or because of conflicts of interest under Rule 5.1 or its predecessors where the attorney would be put in the position of inconsistent roles or obligations at the same time or in the same proceeding. Since neither of those circumstances exist, and the rules do not appear to be directly relevant by their terms or with regard to their purposes, Attorney A is not ethically prohibited from continuing to serve as Trustee in a contested foreclosure matter, despite his prior representation of Seller, where he does not currently represent Seller in the foreclosure or related proceedings. This opinion does not attempt to interpret statutory or case law as to the duties of the Trustee or any legal restrictions upon his eligibility to serve as Trustee.



Back to ethics opinions search

THE NORTH CAROLINA STATE BAR
217 E. Edenton Street • PO Box 25908 • Raleigh, NC 27611-5908 • 919.828.4620
CopyrightŠ North Carolina State Bar. All rights reserved.