Formal Opinion 80
Lawyer Acting for Collection Agency
(1960)

You have asked for an opinion on the question of the propriety of lawyers acting for collection agencies under the following circumstances:

"1. The papers and pleadings in suits are prepared by lay employees of the collection agency;

"2. They are then signed by the lawyer;

"3. The lawyer has no file pertaining to the facts and when inquiry is made, refers the inquirer to the collection agency.

It is the opinion of the Legal Ethics Committee that the conduct described is improper and unethical. The circumstances outlined constitute in effect a mere lending of the attorney's name to a lay collection agency. This is in violation of the "Rules of Discipline" of the Washington Bar Association, which provide that "an attorney or counselor may be reprimanded, suspended, or disbarred for any of the following causes; . lending his name to be used as attorney and counselor for another person who is not an attorney and counselor, authorized to practice law in the State of Washington."

(cf. Yount v. Zarbell, 17 Wn. 2d 278). The rule of discipline above referred to is based upon the Canons of Professional Ethics. Canon 35 provides in part that "the professional services of a lawyer should not be controlled or exploited by any lay agency, personal or corporate, which intervenes between client and lawyer." This canon has been interpreted as preventing an attorney from lending the use of his name to a lay organization which in effect is practicing law or performing legal functions (cf. American Bar Association Opinions 31 and 35).

In Opinion No. 35 of the American Bar Association Legal Ethics Committee, it was held that a lawyer cannot properly allow his services to be exploited by a collection concern, credit exchange or any similar lay agents. In this opinion we find the following language:

"It is argued that the lawyers are not assisting the credit exchange to practice law because it is contended that the work done by the credit exchange and its lay employees in preparing the pleadings, filing suit, etc., in a municipal court is not practicing law.. . . the committee is of the opinion that the institution of suits on behalf of others in any court of law Is practicing law irrespective of whether the statutory law governing that particular court prohibits the institution of such suits by persons other than lawyers or not. Lawyers should not aid or participate in any way in the practice of law by laymen or lay agencies, nor should they in any way sanction the same or profit therefrom. The conduct described in the question is improper, for the attorneys by their actions, are fostering the practice of law by a lay agency, as well as aiding therein and profiting therefrom."

The State Legal Ethics Committee has expressed the same view on this question on other occasions—the most recent opinion being dated June, 1960, Opinion 76 wherein this Committee held that it was unethical for an attorney to lend his name to a complaint in justice court, prepared, filed and otherwise processed by a collection agency.