At its meeting on January 23, 2015, the State Bar Council adopted the ethics opinions summarized below:
2013 Formal Ethics Opinion 14
Representation of Parties to a Commercial Real Estate Loan Closing
Opinion rules that common representation in a commercial real estate loan closing is, in most instances, a “nonconsentable” conflict, meaning that a lawyer may not ask the borrower and the lender to consent to common representation. Note that alternative proposed opinions were published in the Winter 2014 edition of the Journal. The council adopted the first alternative published in the Proposed Opinions article of that Journal.
2014 Formal Ethics Opinion 8
Accepting an Invitation from a Judge to Connect on LinkedIn
Opinion rules that a lawyer may accept an invitation from a judge to be a “connection” on a professional networking website, and may endorse a judge. However, a lawyer may not accept a legal skill or expertise endorsement or a recommendation from a judge.
2014 Formal Ethics Opinion 10
Lawyer Owned Adoption Agency
Opinion rules that a lawyer who handles adoptions as part of her or his law practice and also owns a financial interest in a for-profit adoption agency may, with informed consent, represent an adopting couple utilizing the services of the adoption agency, but may not represent the biological parents.
Ethics Committee Actions
At its meeting on January 22, 2015, the Ethics Committee voted to ask a subcommittee to continue to study proposed 2014 FEO 1, Protecting Confidential Client Information when Mentoring, and voted to send proposed 2014 FEO 11, Notice to Parents Prior to Seeking Nonsecure Custody Order, to a subcommittee for further consideration. The Ethics Committee also voted to revise and republish one proposed opinion (Proposed 2014 FEO 9) and to publish three new proposed opinions.
The comments of readers on the proposed opinions are welcomed.
Proposed 2014 Formal Ethics Opinion 9 Private Lawyer Use of Misrepresentation in Investigation that Serves a Public Interest January 22, 2015
Proposed opinion rules that a private lawyer may supervise an investigation involving misrepresentation if done in pursuit of a public interest and certain conditions are satisfied.
This opinion does not apply to the conduct of a government lawyer. As explained in comment  to Rule 8.4, the prohibition in Rule 8.4(a) against knowingly assisting another to violate the Rules of Professional Conduct or violating the Rules of Professional Conduct through the acts of another does not prohibit a government lawyer from providing legal advice to investigatory personnel relative to any action such investigatory personnel are lawfully entitled to take.
In addition, this opinion is limited to private lawyers who advise, direct, or supervise conduct involving dishonesty, deceit, or misrepresentation as opposed to a lawyer who personally participates in such conduct.
Attorney A was retained by Client C to investigate and, if appropriate, file a lawsuit against Client C’s former employer, E. Employer E employed Client C as a janitor and required him to work 60 hours per week. E paid Client C a salary of $400 per week. Attorney A believes that because his client’s employment was a “nonexempt position” under the North Carolina Wage and Hour Act, the payment method used by E was unlawful. Instead, E should have paid Client C at least $7.25 (minimum wage) per hour for each of the first 40 hours Client C worked per week, and at least $10.88 (time and a half) for each hour in excess of 40 (overtime) that Client C worked per week.
Prior to filing a lawsuit, Attorney A wants to retain a private investigator to investigate E’s payment practices. The private investigator suggests using lawful but misleading or deceptive tactics to obtain the information Attorney A seeks. For example, the private investigator may pose as a person interested in being hired by E in the same capacity as Client C to see if E violates the North Carolina Wage and Hour Act when compensating the investigator.
Prior to filing a lawsuit, may Attorney A retain a private investigator who will misrepresent his identity and purpose when conducting an investigation into E’s payment practices?
Rule 8.4(c) provides that it is professional misconduct for a lawyer to “engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation.” This prohibition is extended by Rule 8.4(a) to third parties acting at the direction of a lawyer. However, the Rules of Professional Conduct are rules of reason and there are instances when the use of misrepresentation does not violate Rule 8.4(a). See Rule 0.2, Scope.
Other jurisdictions have interpreted their Rules of Professional Conduct to permit lawyer supervision of investigations involving misrepresentation in circumstances similar to that set out in the instant inquiry. For example, the bars of Arizona and Maryland permit lawyers to use “testers” who employ misrepresentation to collect evidence of discriminatory practices. Ariz. State Bar Comm. on the Rules of Prof’l Conduct, Op. 99-11 (1999); Maryland Bar Ass'n, Op. 2006-02 (2005). These ethics opinions conclude that testers are necessary to prove discriminatory practices and, therefore, serve an important public policy. The State Bar of Arizona opined that it would be inconsistent with the intent of the Rules of Professional Conduct to interpret the rules to prohibit a lawyer from supervising the activity of testers. Ariz. State Bar Comm. on the Rules of Prof’l Conduct, Op. 99-11 (1999).
The intent of Rule 8.4 is set out in comment  to the rule: “The purpose of professional discipline for misconduct is not punishment, but to protect the public, the courts, and the legal profession.” The challenge is to balance the public’s interest in having unlawful activity fully investigated and possibly thereby stopped, with the public’s and the profession’s interest in ensuring that lawyers conduct themselves with integrity and honesty. In an attempt to balance these two important interests, we conclude that a lawyer may advise, direct, or supervise an investigation involving pretext under certain limited circumstances.
In the pursuit of a legitimate public interest such as in investigations of discrimination in housing, employment, and accommodations, patent and intellectual property infringement, and the production and sale of contaminated and harmful products, a lawyer may advise, direct, and supervise the use of misrepresentation (1) in lawful efforts to obtain information on actionable violations of criminal law, civil law, or constitutional rights; (2) if the lawyer’s conduct is otherwise in compliance with the Rules of Professional Conduct;1 (3) the lawyer has a good faith belief that there is a reasonable possibility that a violation of criminal law, civil law, or constitutional rights has taken place, is taking place, or will take place in the foreseeable future; (4) misrepresentations are limited to identity or purpose; and (5) the evidence sought is not reasonably available through other means. A lawyer may not advise, direct, or supervise the use of misrepresentation to pursue the purely personal interests of the lawyer’s client, where there is no public policy purpose, such as the interests of the principal in a family law matter.
If Attorney A concludes that each of the above conditions is satisfied, he may retain a private investigator to look into E’s payment practices, which investigation may include misrepresentations as to identity and purpose.
1. Rule 4.2(a) prohibits a lawyer from communicating about the subject of the representation with a person the lawyer knows to be represented by another lawyer in the matter unless the other lawyer consents or the communication is authorized by law or court order. A lawyer may not violate this rule through the acts of another, including an investigator. Rule 8.4(a).
Proposed 2015 Formal Ethics Opinion 1 Preparing Pleadings and Other Filings for an Unrepresented Opposing Party January 22, 2015
Proposed opinion rules that a lawyer may not prepare pleadings and other filings for an unrepresented opposing party in a civil proceeding currently pending before a tribunal if doing so is tantamount to giving legal advice to that person.
The Ethics Committee recently received several inquiries on whether a lawyer may prepare a pleading or other filing for an unrepresented opposing party in a civil proceeding. There are a number of rules and ethics opinions that address this issue, but not collectively. The purpose of this opinion is to provide guiding principles for when a lawyer may prepare a pleading or other filing for an unrepresented opposing party.
This opinion is limited to the drafting of pleadings and filings attendant to a proceeding that is currently pending before a tribunal (as that term is defined in Rule 1.0(n)), and to the drafting of any agreement between the parties to resolve the issues in dispute in the proceeding including a release or settlement agreement. The principles do not address the drafting of documents necessary to close a business transaction or other matters that are not the subject of a formal proceeding before a tribunal. “Pleading or filing” is used throughout the opinion to include any document that is filed with the tribunal and any agreement between the parties to settle their dispute and terminate the proceeding.
Survey of Rules and Opinions:
Rule 4.3(a) provides that, in dealing on behalf of a client with a person who is not represented by counsel, a lawyer shall not give legal advice to the person, other than the advice to secure counsel, if the lawyer knows or reasonably should know that the interests of such person are or have a reasonable possibility of being in conflict with the interests of the client.
Comment  to Rule 4.3 clarifies that Rule 4.3 does not prohibit a lawyer from negotiating the terms of a transaction or settling a dispute with an unrepresented person. As long as the lawyer explains that the lawyer represents an adverse party and is not representing the person, the lawyer may inform the person of the terms on which the lawyer's client will enter into an agreement or settle a matter and may prepare documents that require the unrepresented person's signature.
CPR 296, which was adopted in 1981 under the Code of Professional Responsibility which was then in effect, opines that a lawyer may not send to or directly make available to an unrepresented defendant an acceptance of service and waiver form waiving the right to answer and to be notified of the date of trial. However, a lawyer may send to a defendant a form solely for acceptance of service. See CPR 121.
RPC 165, adopted in 1993, states that, “[i]n order to accomplish her client's purposes, the attorney may draft a confession of judgment for execution by the adverse party and solicit its execution by the adverse party so long as the attorney does not undertake to advise the unrepresented party concerning the meaning or significance of the document or to state or imply that she is disinterested.” The opinion continues:
[a]lthough previous ethics opinions, CPRs 121 and 296, have ruled that it is unethical for a lawyer to furnish consent judgments to unrepresented adverse parties for their consideration and execution, there appears to be no basis for such a prohibition when the lawyer is not furnishing a document which appears to represent the position of the adverse party such as an answer, and the lawyer furnishing a confession of judgment or consent judgment does not undertake to advise the adverse party or feign disinterestedness. CPRs 121 and 296 are therefore overruled to the extent they are in conflict with this opinion.
2009 Formal Ethics Opinion 12 rules that a lawyer may prepare an affidavit and confession of judgment for an unrepresented adverse party provided the lawyer explains who he represents and does not give the unrepresented party legal advice; however, the lawyer may not prepare a waiver of exemptions for the adverse party.
2002 Formal Ethics Opinion 6 provides that the lawyer for the plaintiff may not prepare the answer to a complaint for an unrepresented adverse party to file pro se. The basis for this holding is also the prohibition on giving legal advice to a person who is not represented by the lawyer.
The survey of the existing opinions demonstrates that some pleadings or filings that solely represent the interests of one party to a civil proceeding may be prepared by a lawyer representing the interests of the opposing party. However, because of the prohibitions in Rule 4.3, a lawyer may not draft a pleading or filing to be signed solely by an unrepresented opposing party if doing so is tantamount to giving legal advice to that person. A lawyer may draft a pleading or filing to be signed solely by an unrepresented opposing party if the document is necessary to settle the dispute with the lawyer’s client and will achieve objectives of both the lawyer’s client and the unrepresented opposing party. Pursuant to Rule 4.4(a), which prohibits the use of “means” that have no substantial purpose other than to embarrass, delay, or burden a third person, when presenting a pleading or filing for execution, the lawyer must avoid using tactics that intimidate or harass the unrepresented opposing party.
In applying these guiding principles, a lawyer must avoid the overreaching which is tantamount to providing legal advice to an unrepresented opposing party. The lawyer should consider whether (1) the rights, if any, of the unrepresented opposing party will be waived, lost, or otherwise adversely impacted by the pleading or filing, and the significance of those rights; (2) the pleading or filing solely represents the position of the unrepresented opposing party (e.g., an answer to a complaint); (3) the pleading or filing gives the unrepresented opposing party some benefit (e.g., acceptance of service to avoid personal service by the sheriff at the person’s home or work place); (4) the legal consequences of signing the document are not clear from the document itself (e.g., the hidden consequences of signing a waiver of right to file an answer in a divorce proceeding has hidden consequences); (5) the pleading or filing goes beyond what is necessary to achieve the client’s primary objectives; or (6) the pleading or filing will require the signature of a judge or other neutral who can independently evaluate the pleading or filing. If a disinterested lawyer would conclude that the unrepresented opposing party should not agree to sign the pleading or filing under any circumstances without advice of counsel, or the lawyer is not able to articulate why it is in the interest of the unrepresented opposing party to rely upon the lawyer’s draft of the document, the lawyer cannot properly ask the unrepresented opposing party to sign the document.
Applying the guidelines and considerations above leads to the conclusion that a lawyer may prepare the following pleadings or filings for an unrepresented opposing party: an acceptance of service, a confession of judgment, a settlement agreement, a release of claims, an affidavit that accurately reflects the factual circumstances and does not waive the affiant’s rights, and a dismissal with (or without) prejudice pursuant to settlement agreement or release. However, prior to obtaining the signature of the unrepresented opposing party on the pleading or filing, the person must be given the opportunity to review and make corrections to the pleading or filing. It is recommended that the pleading or filing include a written disclosure that indicates the name of the lawyer preparing the document, and specifies that the lawyer represents the other party and has not and cannot provide legal advice to the unrepresented opposing party except the advice to seek representation from independent counsel.
A lawyer should not prepare on behalf of an unrepresented opposing party a waiver of right to file an answer to a complaint, an answer to a complaint, or a waiver of exemptions. A waiver of notice of hearing should only be prepared for the unrepresented opposing party if the lawyer is satisfied that, upon analysis of the considerations indicated above, the lawyer is not asking the unrepresented opposing party to relinquish significant rights without obtaining some benefit.
Neither of the above lists of pleadings or filings is intended to be exhaustive. Before determining whether a pleading or filing may be prepared for an unrepresented opposing party, the lawyer must conclude that she is able to comply with the guiding principles above.
Proposed 2015 Formal Ethics Opinion 2 Preparing Waiver of Right to Notice of Foreclosure for Unrepresented Borrower January 22, 2015
Proposed opinion rules that when the original debt is $100,000 or more, a lawyer for a lender may prepare and provide to an unrepresented borrower, owner, or guarantor a waiver of the right to notice of foreclosure and the right to a foreclosure hearing pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 45-21.16(f) if the lawyer explains the lawyer’s role and does not give legal advice to any unrepresented person. However, a lawyer may not prepare such a waiver if the waiver is a part of a loan modification package for a mortgage secured by the borrower’s primary residence.
N.C. Gen. Stat. §45-21.16(f) provides that in a nonjudicial power of sale foreclosure, any person entitled to notice of the foreclosure (including owners, borrowers, and guarantors) (the “Notice Parties”) “may waive after default the right to notice and hearing by written instrument signed and duly acknowledged by such party.” The statute provides that in foreclosures where the original debt was less than $100,000, only the clerk may send the waiver form to the Notice Parties and the form can only be sent “after service of the notice of hearing.” In foreclosures where the original debt is $100,000 or more, the statute does not specify how the waiver form shall be provided to the Notice Parties or who can draft the waiver form.
It is common practice for lenders dealing with defaulted loans in excess of $100,000 to require Notice Parties to execute a N.C. Gen. Stat. §45-21.16(f) waiver in connection with a forbearance, modification, or reinstatement agreement.
The filing of a foreclosure notice of hearing does not require a Notice Party to file an answer or to attend the foreclosure hearing. See N.C.G.S. §45-21.16(c)(7)(a) (requiring foreclosure notice to inform debtor that “failure to attend the hearing will not affect the debtor’s right to pay the indebtedness...or to attend the actual sale, should the debtor elect to do so.”) The execution of a N.C. Gen. Stat. §45-21.16(f) waiver “waives” the right to receive notice of the foreclosure hearing and the right to require a foreclosure hearing to be held. The clerk is still required to receive evidence and make the findings required by N.C.G.S. § 45-21.16(d), but can do so based upon affidavits from the lender without holding a formal hearing.
May a lawyer who represents the lender on a debt of $100,000 or more draft a N.C. Gen. Stat. §45-21.16(f) waiver form and provide the waiver form to unrepresented Notice Parties for execution?
Yes, provided the lawyer complies with the requirements of N.C. Gen. Stat. §45-21.16 and with Rule 4.3 (Dealing with Unrepresented Persons). However, in the consumer context, when the property subject to foreclosure is the borrower’s primary residence, compliance with Rule 4.3 prohibits a lawyer from drafting the waiver form for inclusion in a loan modification package for execution by the unrepresented borrower.
In dealing on behalf of a client with a person who is not represented by counsel, Rule 4.3(a) states that a lawyer shall not give legal advice to the person, other than the advice to secure counsel if the lawyer knows or reasonably should know that the interests of such person are or have a reasonable possibility of being in conflict with the interests of the client. In addition, paragraph (b) of the rule prohibits the lawyer from stating or implying that the lawyer is disinterested and requires the lawyer to make reasonable efforts to correct any misunderstanding that the unrepresented person may have in this regard.
The Ethics Committee has previously considered whether a lawyer may prepare documents for execution by an unrepresented person. 2004 FEO 10 rules that the lawyer for the buyer in a residential real estate closing may prepare a deed as an accommodation to the needs of her client, the buyer, provided the lawyer makes the disclosures required by Rule 4.3 and does not give legal advice to the seller other than the advice to obtain legal counsel. Similarly, 2009 FEO 12 holds that a lawyer may prepare an affidavit and confession of judgment for an unrepresented adverse party as long as the lawyer explains who he represents and does not give the unrepresented party legal advice. Accord RPC 165.
However, other opinions have held that a lawyer may not prepare an answer or an acceptance of service and waiver form for an unrepresented opposing party. See CPR 121, CPR 296, RPC 165. 2002 FEO 6 explains the rationale for these prior opinions as follows:
The committee has consistently held, however, that a lawyer representing the plaintiff may not send a form answer to the defendant that admits the allegations of the divorce complaint nor may the lawyer send the defendant an "acceptance of service and waiver" form waiving the defendant's right to answer the complaint. CPR 121, CPR 125, CPR 296. The basis for these opinions is the prohibition on giving legal advice to a person who is not represented by counsel.
Except as noted below, the waiver form contemplated by the current inquiry is like a deed or a confession of judgment: it is prepared to accommodate the needs of the lawyer’s client and usually prepared in conjunction with negotiations between the lender and the borrower relative to avoiding the consequences of a default by execution of a forbearance, modification, or reinstatement agreement. A foreclosure notice of hearing does not require a Notice Party to take any action prior to a foreclosure hearing or to attend the hearing. After execution of a waiver form, the borrower may still pay the indebtedness or attend the foreclosure sale. Therefore, except as noted below, preparing a N.C. Gen. Stat. §45-21.16(f) waiver form for unrepresented Notice Parties is not tantamount to giving legal advice to an unrepresented person and the lender’s lawyer may draft the waiver and give it to unrepresented Notice Parties if the lawyer does not undertake to advise the unrepresented Notice Parties concerning the meaning or significance of the waiver form or state or imply that the lawyer is disinterested.
There is an exception to this holding in the consumer context. When the property subject to foreclosure is the borrower’s primary residence, compliance with Rule 4.3 prohibits a lawyer from drafting a waiver form for inclusion in a loan modification package for execution by the unrepresented borrower. In this context, preparation of the waiver form is tantamount to giving legal advice to an unrepresented person because the waiver prospectively eliminates a significant right or interest of the unrepresented person—the borrower’s right to notice of foreclosure upon default on the new or modified loan—and there is a substantial risk that an unsophisticated, distressed borrower will not understand this. See Proposed 2015 FEO 1.
Does it make a difference if the waiver is executed in conjunction with other lender prepared documents, such as a forbearance agreement, modification agreement, or reinstatement agreement?
Subject to the limitation noted in the last paragraph of Opinion #1 on drafting a waiver form for inclusion in a loan modification package for a loan secured by the unrepresented borrower’s primary residence, this does not make a difference. Comment  to Rule 4.3 clarifies that Rule 4.3 does not prohibit a lawyer from negotiating the terms of a transaction or settling a dispute with an unrepresented person. So long as the lawyer has explained that the lawyer represents an adverse party, the lawyer may inform the unrepresented person of the terms on which the lawyer's client will enter into an agreement or settle a matter and may prepare documents that require the unrepresented person's signature. In dealing with unrepresented Notice Parties, however, the lender’s lawyer must fully disclose that the lawyer represents the interests of the lender and will draft the documents consistent with the interests of the lender. The lawyer may not give any legal advice to the Notice Parties except the advice to obtain legal counsel. Rule 4.3.
Proposed 2015 Formal Ethics Opinion 3 Offering Prospective Client a Computer Tablet in Direct Mail Solicitation January 22, 2015
Proposed opinion rules that a lawyer may not offer a computer tablet to a prospective client in a direct mail solicitation letter.
Lawyer represents clients in personal injury matters. Lawyer advertises his legal services by way of targeted direct mail solicitation. The solicitation letter includes a flyer that states:
NEW CLIENTS TO LAW FIRM: NEW COMPUTER TABLET
New clients of law firm wishing to communicate electronically may be issued a computer tablet with an internet-capable web cam that will allow low cost-free video conferences and electronic mail directly with the lawyer.
Disclaimer: Any equipment issued is issued free-of-charge to new clients to better facilitate communication with the law firm during representation.
The flyer does not indicate that the computer tablet is on loan and must be returned to Lawyer at the conclusion of the representation.
After a client hires the firm, Lawyer presents the client with an office equipment agreement. The agreement provides that the tablet must be returned to Lawyer at the end of the representation and, at that time, the client will have the option to purchase the tablet at cost. The client must pay for the tablet if it is not returned timely and in good condition. If the tablet is damaged, the client agrees to repair the tablet, replace the tablet with one of equal value, or purchase the tablet at cost from Lawyer.
May Lawyer offer a computer tablet to a prospective client in a direct mail solicitation letter?
No. A lawyer shall not make false or misleading communications about the lawyer or the lawyer’s services. Rule 7.1. Neither Lawyer’s direct mail solicitation letter nor the flyer makes clear that the tablet is on loan and must be returned at the conclusion of the representation unless the client elects to purchase the tablet from Lawyer. The disclaimer included on the flyer is inadequate under the circumstances and is misleading.
Even with an adequate disclaimer, Lawyer’s direct mail solicitation campaign is not permissible. A lawyer may advertise legal services by way of direct mail solicitation letters, but is prohibited from engaging in in-person, live, or telephone solicitation of prospective clients with whom the lawyer has no prior professional relationship. Rule 7.3. Rule 7.3(a) prohibits lawyer-initiated telephone solicitation of a prospective client because of the potential for abuse inherent in live telephone contact by a lawyer with a person known to be in need of legal services. An offer of promotional merchandise, whether on loan or as a gift, in a targeted direct mail solicitation letter is an inducement to a prospective client to call the lawyer’s office solely to inquire about the merchandise, thereby giving the lawyer the improper opportunity to solicit the caller in person. 2004 FEO 2 (lawyer may not offer promotional merchandise in a targeted direct mail solicitation letter as an inducement to call the lawyer's office).
Lawyer sends direct mail solicitation letters to prospective clients known to be in need of legal services. Lawyer does not offer merchandise to prospective clients in the solicitation letter. After being hired by a client, may Lawyer offer to clients temporary use of a computer tablet for purposes of communicating with Lawyer or gathering information and/or evidence to be used for the client’s matter?
Rule 1.8(e) prohibits a lawyer from providing financial assistance to a client in connection with pending or contemplated litigation, except the lawyer may advance court costs and expenses of litigation.
Pursuant to comment  to Rule 1.8:
Lawyers may not subsidize lawsuits or administrative proceedings brought on behalf of their clients, including making or guaranteeing loans to their clients for living expenses, because to do so would encourage clients to pursue lawsuits that might not otherwise be brought and because such assistance gives lawyers too great a financial stake in the litigation. These dangers do not warrant a prohibition on a lawyer lending a client court costs and litigation expenses, including the expenses of medical examination and the costs of obtaining and presenting evidence, because these advances are virtually indistinguishable from contingent fees and help ensure access to the courts. Similarly, an exception allowing lawyers representing indigent clients to pay court costs and litigation expenses regardless of whether these funds will be repaid is warranted. [Emphasis added.]
Lawyer may loan a tablet to a client provided the tablet is necessary for the client to communicate with Lawyer and/or for the collection of evidence; the tablet is not quid pro quo for hiring Lawyer or law firm; and the client understands that the tablet is not a gift, but is on loan and must be returned to Lawyer or purchased at the end of the representation. Lawyer may not give a tablet to a client solely for use that is unrelated to the representation because to do so would be tantamount to loaning money to the client for living expenses. See 2001 FEO 7 (advancing cost of rental car prohibited if vehicle used only occasionally for client’s transportation to medical exams).
THE NORTH CAROLINA STATE BAR
217 E. Edenton Street (27601) • PO Box 25908 • Raleigh, NC 27611-5908 • 919.828.4620
Copyrightę North Carolina State Bar. All rights reserved.