Washington Lawyer - May 2019 - 36

ASK THE ETHICS EXPERTS

OSI

SERVING LAWYERS
SINCE 1981

D.C.'s Most Complete Attorney
Service Support System
Incredible flexibility -- plans
from $60/mo through full time
officing, with mail, phone, office,
email, other options, tailored to
your situation
'Digital mail' options: same day
notification of items received, and
scanned copies if desired
The most fully developed customer portal around -- reserve
offices, make payments, review call
records, list qualifications, online
Over 400 potential attorney
collaborators
Highly presentable facilities
Evening and weekend use
The orginal attorney officing
system. Fully adapted to the digital
world.
Ask about our Attorney Starting
Package at $99 a month.
Mention the DC Bar ad and
receive 1/2 off the first three
months

ETHICAL ISSUES IN

LIMITED SCOPE
REPRESENTATION
By Erika Stillabower

Q
A

I am a D.C. lawyer who wishes to provide more pro bono legal services. As a solo
practitioner, however, I am reluctant to commit to a representation that could
involve protracted litigation, but I understand that the D.C. Rules of Professional
Conduct permit "limited scope representation." What ethical issues must I consider
when offering to limit the scope of my representation to, for example, a mediation
or negotiation of a dispute before any suit is filed?

Limited scope representation has long been permitted under the D.C. Rules.
However, effective January 1, 2019, the D.C. Court of Appeals amended the
language of D.C. Rule 1.2(c) to align with the ABA Model Rule. Although the
amended rule is unlikely to substantively impact the way D.C. lawyers engage in
limited scope representation, the revised language and new Comment [6] should
be considered.

Amended Rule 1.2(c) states that "[a] lawyer may limit the scope of the representation if the limitation is
reasonable under the circumstances and the client gives informed consent." Whether a limitation is reasonable under the circumstances is a question of fact left to the professional judgment of the lawyer who
contemplates providing limited scope services. However, D.C. Legal Ethics Opinion 330 (Unbundling Legal
Services)1 makes clear that a lawyer may ethically limit the scope of a representation only insofar as those
limits do not bar the provision of competent representation. The opinion also explains that all the duties
that generally attach to lawyer-client relationships apply to limited scope arrangements, including
diligence, loyalty, communication, confidentiality, and avoidance of conflicts of interest.2
New Comment [6] to Rule 1.2 reminds lawyers that Rule 1.5(b) requires a lawyer to communicate in
writing the scope of the lawyer's representation when the lawyer has not regularly represented a client and,
importantly, advises that "in all matters involving limited scope representation, it is generally prudent for
a lawyer to state in writing any limitation on representation, provide the client with a written summary of
considerations discussed, and to receive a written informed consent from the client to the lawyer's limited
representation." The Comment also cross-references the definition of informed consent (Rule 1.0(e)) and its
requirements.

1629 K St. Suite 300
N.W. Washington D.C. 20006

D.C. Bar Legal Ethics counsel Hope C. Todd, Saul Jay Singer, and Erika Stillabower are available for inquiries on the
ethics helpline at 202-737-4700, ext. 1010, or at ethics@dcbar.org.

NOTES
1 See dcbar.org/bar-resources/legal-ethics/opinions/opinion330.cfm.
2 In addition to the ethics rules, lawyers who appear before tribunals must also comply with applicable court rules and
orders regarding limited scope appearances. On June 16, 2014, the Superior Court of the District of Columbia issued
Administrative Order 14-10 permitting limited appearances in the court's Civil Division, Probate Division, Tax Division,
Family Court, and Domestic Violence Unit pursuant to the order.

https://osioffices.com (202) 600-7777
manager@osioffices.com

36 WASHINGTON LAWYER

MAY 2019

http://www.dcbar.org/bar-resources/legal-ethics/opinions/opinion330.cfm https://www.osioffices.com https://www.dcbar.org/

Washington Lawyer - May 2019

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of Washington Lawyer - May 2019