{"id":4560,"date":"2003-08-23T10:52:32","date_gmt":"2003-08-23T14:52:32","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blogs.law.harvard.edu\/formerlyknownas\/2003\/08\/23\/no-need-for-unbundlephobia\/"},"modified":"2011-08-05T15:00:43","modified_gmt":"2011-08-05T19:00:43","slug":"no-need-for-unbundlephobia","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/2003\/08\/23\/no-need-for-unbundlephobia\/","title":{"rendered":"No Need for Unbundlephobia"},"content":{"rendered":"<p><a name=\"a208\"><\/a><\/p>\n<div style=\"padding-left: 30px\"><span style=\"font-family: Arial\"><a href=\"http:\/\/myshingle.com\/article.pl?sid=03\/08\/22\/2213239\">MyShingle&#8217;s<\/a> Carolyn Elephant is asking <\/span><span style=\"font-family: Arial\">&#8220;Will Unbundling Lead to a Bundle of Malpractice?&#8221;\u00a0 (Aug. 22, 2003).\u00a0 Carolyn points to an <a href=\"http:\/\/www.abanet.org\/journal\/redesign\/08solo.html\">article<\/a> from the August 2003\u00a0<em>ABA Journal<\/em>, entitled <\/span><span style=\"font-family: Arial\"><em>Loosening Ties &#8211; Unbundling Legal Services<\/em>. <\/span><\/div>\n<div style=\"text-align: center\">.\n<\/div>\n<div><span style=\"font-family: Arial\">With &#8220;unbundling,&#8221;\u00a0the lawyer and client agree that the lawyer will only perform specific, discrete tasks.\u00a0\u00a0 While applauding the ability of unbundling to expand access to legal services, Carolyn is concerned over the ethical and malpractice ramifications of unbundling.\u00a0\u00a0 For example, she asks Carolyn asks how far an attorney can go in a limited representation agreement, wondering whether, &#8220;<\/span><span style=\"font-family: Arial\">For instance, under the existing standards of professional responsibility, could an attorney agree to appear for a client in court but have the client handle the case investigation and discovery?&#8221; <\/span><\/div>\n<div style=\"text-align: center\">.\n<\/div>\n<div><span style=\"font-family: Arial\">Carolyn also cautions that &#8220;<\/span><span style=\"font-family: Arial\">so long as the prospect of malpractice and bar complaints remain a threat, solo and small firm attorneys must proceed cautiously in entering into unbundled arrangements.\u00a0 She <\/span><span style=\"font-family: Arial\">is certainly correct that (emphasis added):<\/span><\/div>\n<blockquote>\n<div><span style=\"font-family: Arial\">[A]ttorneys should never agree to &#8220;unbundled&#8221; service on a &#8220;handshake.&#8221; Unbundled services is one arrangement that <span style=\"text-decoration: underline\">demands a clear retainer agreement<\/span> laying out the scope of the attorney&#8217;s representation &#8211; otherwise an attorney who chooses to act as a &#8220;nice guy&#8221; and &#8220;look over a contract&#8221; or dispense some advice is destined to finish last. <\/span><\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\n<div><span style=\"font-family: Arial\">Luckily, for attorneys who sincerely want to offer\u00a0 or consider unbundled services (as opposed to those who are looking for excuses to refuse such clients and stifle the growing movement), there are some good <a href=\"http:\/\/www.unbundledlaw.org\/retainer_agreements\/sample_retainer.htm\">Sample Unbundling Retainer Agreements<\/a> <\/span><span style=\"font-family: Arial\">readily available online at the <a href=\"http:\/\/www.unbundledlaw.org\/htm\">Unbundled Law Services<\/a> website, which advises that\u00a0\u00a0<span><span style=\"font-family: Arial\">&#8220;An essential part of an &#8216;unbundled&#8217; legal services practice is a clear, detailed list (signed by the attorney + the client) which specifies which services the attorney will provide (and those s\/he will <em>not<\/em> provide).&#8221;\u00a0\u00a0 Included are links, for example,\u00a0to: <\/span><\/span><\/span><\/div>\n<ul>\n<li><span style=\"font-family: Arial\"><span><span style=\"font-family: Arial\">a <span style=\"text-decoration: underline\">Retainer Agreement<\/span> that is part of <a href=\"http:\/\/www.unbundledlaw.org\/States\/Maine%20ammendments%20to%20RCP%20July%202001.htm\">Maine<\/a> Bar Rule 3.4(i) <\/span><\/span><\/span> <span style=\"font-family: Arial\"><br \/>\n<\/span><\/li>\n<li><span style=\"font-family: Arial\"><span>a\u00a0<span style=\"text-decoration: underline\">Model Composite Form<\/span><\/span><span> &#8211; drafted by the University of <a href=\"http:\/\/www.unbundledlaw.org\/retainer_agreements\/legal_services.htm\">Maryland<\/a> School of Law Professor, Michael Millemann <\/span><\/span><\/li>\n<li><span style=\"font-family: Arial\"><span><span style=\"font-family: Arial\"><span>a sample retainer agreement that has been used in <a href=\"http:\/\/www.unbundledlaw.org\/retainer_agreements\/CA%20Rules%20&amp;%20Agreement.pdf\">California<\/a> <span style=\"text-decoration: underline\">family court<\/span> matters<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<div><span style=\"font-family: Arial\">As far as ethical issues are concerned, it is clear that a trend exists to clarify the attorney&#8217;s (already existing) right to enter into discrete-task relationships with willing and well-informed clients.\u00a0 For example:<\/span><\/div>\n<blockquote>\n<div><span style=\"font-family: Arial\">1) the new ABA <a href=\"http:\/\/www.abanet.org\/cpr\/mrpc\/rule_1_2.html\">Model Rule 1.2(c)<\/a><\/span> states that &#8220;A lawyer may limit the scope of the representation if the limitation is reasonable under the circumstances and the client gives informed consent.&#8221; <span style=\"font-size: x-small\">and\u00a0the related<\/span><a href=\"http:\/\/www.abanet.org\/cpr\/mrpc\/rule_1_2_comm.html\"><span style=\"font-size: x-small\"> Comment<\/span><\/a><span style=\"font-size: x-small\"> on Agreements Limiting Scope of Representation explains (emphases added):<span style=\"font-family: Arial\"> <\/span><\/span><\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\n<blockquote>\n<blockquote>\n<p align=\"justify\"><span style=\"font-family: Arial;font-size: x-small\">[6] The scope of services to be provided by a lawyer may be limited by agreement with the client or by the terms under which the lawyer&#8217;s services are made available to the client. . . . A limited representation <span style=\"text-decoration: underline\">may be appropriate because the client has limited objectives for the representation<\/span>. In addition, the terms upon which representation is undertaken may exclude specific means that might otherwise be used to accomplish the client&#8217;s objectives. Such limitations may <span style=\"text-decoration: underline\">exclude actions that the client thinks are too costly<\/span> or that the lawyer regards as repugnant or imprudent.<\/span><\/p>\n<p align=\"justify\"><span style=\"font-family: Arial;font-size: x-small\">[7] Although this Rule affords the lawyer and client substantial latitude to limit the representation, <span style=\"text-decoration: underline\">the limitation must be reasonable under the circumstances<\/span>. If, for example, a client&#8217;s objective is limited to securing general information about the law the client needs in order to handle a common and typically uncomplicated legal problem, the lawyer and client may agree that the lawyer&#8217;s services will be limited to a brief telephone consultation. Such a limitation, however, would not be reasonable if the time allotted was not sufficient to yield advice upon which the client could rely. Although an agreement for a limited representation does not exempt a lawyer from the duty to provide competent representation, <span style=\"text-decoration: underline\">the limitation is a factor to be considered when determining the legal knowledge, skill, thoroughness and preparation reasonably necessary for the representation<\/span>. See Rule 1.1.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n<\/blockquote>\n<blockquote>\n<div><span style=\"font-family: Arial\">2) The <\/span><span style=\"font-family: Arial\"><a href=\"http:\/\/www.abanet.org\/cpr\/mrpc\/rule_1_1_comm.html\">Comment to Model Rule 1.1<\/a> (Competence)<\/span> notes, regarding <span style=\"font-family: Arial\">Thoroughness and Preparation, that\u00a0\u00a0&#8220;<\/span><span style=\"font-family: Arial\">[5] . . . An agreement between the lawyer and the client regarding the scope of the representation may limit the matters for which the lawyer is responsible. See Rule 1.2(c).<\/span><\/div>\n<div>3) The <span style=\"font-family: Arial\"><a href=\"http:\/\/www.abanet.org\/cpr\/mrpc\/rule_1_8_comm.html\">Comment to Model Rule 1.8<\/a> <\/span><span style=\"font-family: Arial\">on Limiting Liability and Settling <span style=\"text-decoration: underline\">Malpractice Claims<\/span> clarifies that &#8220;<\/span><span style=\"font-family: Arial\">[14] . . . . This paragraph does not, however, . . . prohibit an agreement in accordance with Rule 1.2 that defines the scope of the representation, although a definition of scope that makes the obligations of representation illusory will amount to an attempt to limit liability.<\/span><\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\n<div><span style=\"font-family: Arial\">Your editor believes that the main barrier to unbundling over the centuries has been the profession&#8217;s desire to protect its financial position (and to craft ethical restrictions to support those interests), rather than <em>valid<\/em> issues of professional responsibility and client protection.\u00a0\u00a0 Lawyers have dismissively said &#8220;We can&#8217;t do that,&#8221; as opposed to &#8220;Here&#8217;s what you need to consider before you and I consent to limiting my role.&#8221;\u00a0 Because\u00a0performing discrete tasks for clients is still rather new, there are likely to be issues to be worked out relating to ethical responsibilities and malpractice exposure.\u00a0\u00a0 But, <span style=\"text-decoration: underline\">none of these problems are insurmountable<\/span>.\u00a0\u00a0 Solo and small firm practitioners can and <span style=\"text-decoration: underline\">should be working to\u00a0draft appropriate rules and sample forms<\/span> that will assure a healthy environment for the growth of unbundling. <\/span><\/div>\n<div><span style=\"font-family: Arial\">Before leaving this topic, howerver, I must disagree with one implication in the Aug. 22nd MyShingle posting.\u00a0 Carolyn states (emphasis added):<\/span><\/div>\n<blockquote>\n<div><span style=\"font-family: Arial\"><em><span style=\"color: black\">First, attorneys must try to <span style=\"text-decoration: underline\">discern whether clients seek unbundled services because they lack resources for full service or are freeloader<\/span>to complain to the bar (if not file a malpractice suit) if the lawyer does not live up to expectations.<br \/>\n<\/span><\/em><\/span><\/p>\n<div><span style=\"font-family: Arial\"><em><span style=\"color: black\"><span style=\"font-family: Arial\"><span style=\"text-decoration: underline\">Many Americans who can &#8220;afford&#8221; full service legal representation nonetheless want to use<\/span><\/span><span style=\"text-decoration: underline\">s<\/span> who seek free advice and are simply too cheap to hire a lawyer. The freeloading clients will probably expect much more assistance in an unbundled arrangement than a lawyer is willing to provide &#8211; and are likely <\/span><\/em><\/span><span style=\"font-family: Arial\"> the unbundling option. <\/span><\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\n<div dir=\"ltr\"><span style=\"font-family: Arial\">Many Americans who can &#8220;afford&#8221; full service legal representation nonetheless want to use the unbundling option.\u00a0 They not only do so in good faith, but they have the <span style=\"text-decoration: underline\">absolute right to seek and receive such limited engagements<\/span> with their lawyers, no matter how wealthy they may or\u00a0may not be.\u00a0 Lawyers are agents and fiduciaries, whose job\u00a0is to serve the client&#8217;s wishes, unless to do so puts the client\u00a0at unacceptable risk.\u00a0 Lawyers are not licensed leeches, permitted to\u00a0suck as much blood from their clients as is available.\u00a0\u00a0 Clients are not freeloaders if they say either &#8220;I want to participate as much as possible,&#8221; or &#8220;I want to leave a little money for me.&#8221;<\/span><\/div>\n<ul>\n<li><span style=\"font-family: Arial\"><strong>Thanks <\/strong>(Aug 22, 2003) to Jerry Lawson at\u00a0<a href=\"http:\/\/www.elawyerblog.org\/\"><strong><span style=\"color: #924547\">eLawyer Blog<\/span><\/strong><\/a> for quoting from and pointing his\u00a0visitors to our <a href=\"http:\/\/blogs.law.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/2003\/07\/15#a111\">posting<\/a> Pro Bono is Not the Answer to the Access Problem. <\/span><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>MyShingle&#8217;s Carolyn Elephant is asking &#8220;Will Unbundling Lead to a Bundle of Malpractice?&#8221;\u00a0 (Aug. 22, 2003).\u00a0 Carolyn points to an article from the August 2003\u00a0ABA Journal, entitled Loosening Ties &#8211; Unbundling Legal Services. . With &#8220;unbundling,&#8221;\u00a0the lawyer and client agree that the lawyer will only perform specific, discrete tasks.\u00a0\u00a0 While applauding the ability of unbundling [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":94,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":false,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","default_image_id":0,"font":"","enabled":false},"version":2},"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false},"categories":[2926],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-4560","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-pre-06-2006"],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p6kP1R-1by","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4560","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/94"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=4560"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4560\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":14168,"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4560\/revisions\/14168"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=4560"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=4560"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=4560"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}