To view this page ensure that Adobe Flash Player version 11.1.0 or greater is installed.

BAR COUNSEL Ethics Considerations in Limited-Scope Representations iStock Not So Impractical T his month, Oregon lawyers will take part in the National Pro Bono Celebration (www. celebrateprobono.org) to shine a spotlight on the need to increase pro bono legal services to low income individuals and groups. Providing pro bono service is key component of advancing access to justice. To that end, the bar has adopted an aspirational standard encouraging all lawyers to devote 80 hours of their time to pro bono service, including two cases involving direct service to the poor. 1 Pro bono service is also a bedrock principle of professionalism, as recognized by the Oregon State Bar Statement of Professionalism. 2 While Oregon lawyers’ annual pro bono reporting reveals that many lawyers have risen to this challenge, there is still much work to be done. Now is a good time for us to re-examine our pro bono commitments and to consider donating additional time and resources to those in By Mark Johnson Roberts need of legal services. An easy way to contribute pro bono services, if you don’t have the ability to take on an entire case, is to volunteer for a telephone hotline or a drop-in legal clinic. This month’s column will examine the ethics rules that apply to such limited- scope representations. Nonprofit and court-annexed legal clinics and hotlines exist to provide short-term legal assistance, such as limited advice and the selection and completion of legal forms, that addresses the emergent needs of otherwise underserved consumers of legal services. In such a context, an attorney-client relationship is often formed, 3 but there is no expectation by either lawyer or client that the relationship will extend beyond the limited context of the clinic or call. 4 See Model Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 6.5, Comment [1] (Am Bar Ass’n 1983) (hereinafter “Model Rules”). Oregon Rule of Professional Conduct (RPC) 6.5 provides as follows: or the client that the lawyer will provide continuing representation in the matter: (1) is subject to Rule 1.7 and 1.9(a) only if the lawyer knows that the representation of the client involves a conflict of interest; and (2) is subject to Rule 1.10 only if the lawyer knows that another lawyer associated with the lawyer in a law firm is disqualified by Rule 1.7 or 1.9(a) with respect to the matter. (b) Except as provided in paragraph (a)(2), Rule 1.10 is inapplicable to a representation governed by this Rule. The rule was a proposal of the ABA Ethics 2000 Commission that the ABA adopted in 2002. It entered our rules with our conversion to the RPC model in 2005. The rule’s purpose is to address and ameliorate concerns that the usual conflict-of-interest rules might otherwise While Oregon lawyers’ annual pro bono reporting reveals that many lawyers have risen to this challenge, there is still much work to be done. Now is a good time for us to re-examine our pro bono commitments and to consider donating additional time and resources. (a) A lawyer who, under the auspices of a program sponsored by a nonprofit organization or court, provides short-term limited legal services to a client without expectation by either the lawyer discourage lawyers from participating in nonprofit or court-annexed legal assistance programs. Ellen J. Bennett, Elizabeth J. Cohen & Helen W. Gunnarsson, Annotated Model Rules of Professional Conduct 586 (8th ed, Am OCTOBER 2016 • OREGON STATE BAR BULLETIN 9