QUESTION: Attorney works in a non-attorney capacity for a Title Company with several Missouri offices. Attorney also practices law as an independent, general practitioner. Company receives requests for drafting documents not associated with the issuance of title insurance.

Question 1: May Title Company refer those requests to attorney?

Question 2: May attorney draft such documents in the capacity of solo practitioner, if compensated for all work directly by client and so long as client has a means to contact attorney directly?

Question 3: May other Title Company employees act as intermediaries for relaying information, if Attorney supervises those individuals?

ANSWER: Question 1. Because Attorney works for the Title Company, referrals to Attorney would be in person solicitation prohibited by Rule 4-7.3(b). The Title Company could provide people with the names of several attorneys who do that type of work, including Attorney.

Question 2. Yes. The attorney-client relationship must be direct between the attorney and client.

Question 3. In order to supervise the individuals, Attorney would have to have control and authority over them. Attorney would have to be able to take remedial measures if they acted inappropriately. That does not seem likely if they are employed by another entity. Attorney should not use employees of the Title Company to convey any information that would be considered confidential under Rule 4-1.6.

QUESTION: Attorney´s firm has interviewed a legal assistant for a position at the firm. The legal assistant is currently working for an attorney who represents a co-defendant in a case Attorney´s firm is handling. If hired, the legal assistant would not be assigned to the case and Attorney would inform all attorneys and staff members associated with the case not to discuss any aspect with the new legal assistant. Would there be any potential conflicts or ethical violations? ANSWER: The legal assistant must be completely screened from all contact with or access to the case involving the co-defendant. If the legal assistant is effectively screened, it will not be necessary for Attorney´s firm to withdraw. This opinion does not, in any way, affect the ability of the court to rule on a motion to disqualify. Additionally, if a complaint is received, it would be investigated to determine the facts independently.

QUESTION: Attorney is City Attorney and is currently employing a law student as an intern on a part-time basis. The intern also works for a private attorney who appears in municipal court. In the City Attorney´s office, the intern is not allowed to deal with any cases involving the private attorney. May the intern be employed in such a manner without there being a conflict? ANSWER: It would be a conflict of interest for a law student intern to be employed in the City Attorney´s office while at the same time working for a firm in which some members are representing defendants in municipal court or otherwise opposing the city in pending litigation. Screening is not an option. If Attorney employed an intern in these circumstances, Attorney would violate Rule 4-5.3.

QUESTION: If Attorney hires an investigator as an independent contractor and does not instruct the investigator on the manner of taking statements from witnesses, will it have implications for Attorney if the investigator tape records a statement without informing the witness that the conversation is being recorded? ANSWER: Yes, under Rule 4-8.4(a) and (c).

QUESTION: May Attorney hire an investigator to do pretrial investigation who will make ex parte contact with witnesses whom with whom Attorney could not make ex parte contact under Rule 4-4.2? ANSWER: No. To the extent that the rules prohibit an attorney from engaging in particular conduct, Rules 4-5.3 and 4-8.4(a) prohibit an attorney from directing or permitting an agent to engage in that conduct.

QUESTION: Attorney would use an advertising firm to do direct marketing. Attorney would draft a form letter for each type of case. The advertising firm would use the form letter, a database of information obtained from police reports and a facsimile signature of Attorney to do direct mailings to prospective clients. ANSWER: Although direct mailing is authorized under Rule 4-7.3(a), Attorney must make the determination that none of the exceptions found in Rule 4-7.3(c) apply to the situation. Attorney also must supervise any non-lawyers who are acting as Attorney´s agents under Rule 4-5.3. This system would inherently violate both of those rules.

QUESTION: Attorney would participate in a living trust program run by a separate company. Non-attorneys who are not under the supervision of an attorney would contact the clients and gather information to prepare the living trust and would obtain a check for the company and a check for the attorney. Attorney would be a review attorney for documents sent by the company and advising the company of any changes needed to comply with Missouri law. Attorney will be compensated by the clients at a rate set by the company. Attorney is encouraged to make direct contact with the clients. Attorney will send the approved trust document or recommendations to the company. The company will send the final document to the client. ANSWER: This program would violate the following rules within Rule 4: 1.6, 1.7(b), 5.3, 5.4, 5.5, 7.3(b) and 8.4(a).

QUESTION: To what extent is an attorney disqualified from handling cases against attorneys in a firm which previously employed the attorney´s paralegal? ANSWER: Attorney would not be required to withdraw from or decline cases adverse to clients of the paralegal´s former firm as long as (1) the paralegal is screened from participation in those cases and (2) the paralegal does not reveal any confidential information from the former employment to any person in the attorney´s firm. These measures apply to all situations in the former firm, regardless of whether the paralegal had any involvement in those cases.