This page contains the text of the Model Rules of Professional Conduct as amended by the House of Delegates in their debate of the Ethics 2000 Commission report, shown with the changes from the previous Model Rules. Individual "clean" copies of the current Model Rules, complete with changes made since Ethics 2000, can be found here.

Complete text of the Ethics 2000 Commission Report as passed, showing changes from former Model Rules:

This document contains the Reporter's Explanation Memos for each Rule. Please note that where Rules were changed on the floor of the House or conforming amendments were necessary (Rules 1.2, 1.5, 1.6, 1.10, 1.17, 4.2 and 6.1), the Memo does not reflect those changes.

INNOVATION
"Civil Legal Assistance for all Americans," by Jeanne Charn and Richard Zorza from Bellows-Sacks Access to Civil Legal Services Project at Harvard Law School, provides a provocative prescription for full access to basic legal help for low and moderate income families.  http://www.law.harvard.edu/academics/clinical/bellow-sacks/papers/bellow-sacks.pdf

CIVIL GIDEON
Statutory Right to Counsel - Civil Gideon – Includes some information about Civil Gideon
Clearinghouse Review Journal of Poverty Law and Policy Explores the Right to Counsel in Civil Cases
The July/August, 2006 issue of the Clearinghouse Review Journal of Poverty Law and Policy, which is published by the Sargent Shriver National Center of Poverty Law, explores the growing momentum in the movement for a right to counsel in civil legal cases.  The articles provide a multifaceted view of the current scholarship and initiatives pushing for a right to counsel.  Paul Marvy, coordinator of the Committee for Indigent Representation and Civil Legal Equality, traces the thinking in the United States about a civil right to counsel back to a 1923 Harvard Law Review article and provides an historical understanding of the right to counsel.  Other articles explore state initiatives, statutes, and cases regarding a right to counsel for certain types of cases, drawing examples from California, Washington, Wisconsin, Ohio, and Maryland.  Wade Henderson, executive director of the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, and Jonathan Smith, executive director of the Legal Aid Society, place the movement for a right to counsel in the context of the broader civil rights struggle.  They argue, “The intersection of a civil right to counsel and racial, ethnic, and gender fairness is an area that can offer new arguments in support of the right and can bring important new allies into the campaign.”  Laura Abel, deputy director of the poverty program at the Brennan Center for Justice, describes lessons the civil right to counsel movement can learn from the experience gained in establishing and enforcing the criminal right to counsel (including, the critical importance of securing adequate funding to finance the right, not tolerating inadequate representation, and developing clear minimum standards to guide the provision of representation).  The final articles explore the right to counsel in the context of international law and human rights.  To subscribe or for more information, see: http://www.povertylaw.org/clearinghouse-review.  Based on original reporting by Brennan Center staff.  (Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law, http://www.brennancenter.org/) 

Martha Davis weighs in on the international aspect of "Civil Gideon" in National Law Journal. ( 8-7-06 ) http://www.law.com/jsp/nlj/PubArticleNLJ.jsp?id=1154682259240

ABA Resolutions. At the ABA ’s Honolulu , the ABA House of Delegates considered the following resolutions proposed by the ABA Presidential Task Force on Access to Civil Justice (nos. 1 and 2) and the ABA Presidential Task Force on the Renaissance of Idealism in the Legal Profession (no. 3):

Approved Unanimously by ABA House of Delegates on August 7, 2006:
RESOLVED, That the American Bar Association urges federal, state, and territorial governments to provide legal counsel as a matter of right at public expense to low income persons in those categories of adversarial proceedings where basic human needs are at stake, such as those involving shelter, sustenance, safety, health or child custody, as determined by each jurisdiction.

Other Resolutions:  

10 Principles of a State Civil Legal Aid Delivery System: Describes the elements of a successful system for the delivery of civil legal aid. The principles are intended to aid state Access to Justice Commissions and similar entities in assessing their state systems. 

Judicial Support for Pro Bono:  Urges all federal, state, local and territorial courts to develop programs, in collaboration with state, local and territorial bar associations and pro bono programs and legal services offices, to encourage, facilitate and recognize pro bono representation of indigent parties in civil cases.  (Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law,   http://www.brennancenter.org)

MISC RESOURCES
Legal Needs LSC Justice Gap report at http://www.lsc.gov/
Delivery Issues at http://www.lri.lsc.gov/
Court-related Issues at http://www.ncsconline.org/D_Research/index.html

UNBUNDLING
Pro Se/Unbundling Resource Center - This site has been developed as a project of the ABA Standing Committee on the Delivery of Legal Services. It is designed as a resource to help lawyers, bar leaders, the judiciary, court administrators, scholars and the media better understand and critically analyze the issues involved in self-representation and unbundled legal services.

http://www.abanet.org/legalservices/delivery/delunbund.html

http://www.abanet.org/legalservices/delivery/delunbundbook.html - Books and reports from the ABA Pro Se and Unbundling Resource Center  

Resources on Unbundled Legal Services From the ABA Standing Committee on the Delivery of Legal Services

www.abanet.org/legalservices/delivery

ABA White Paper on Unbundling Available
The Delivery Committee has issued a white paper examining rules that clarify the role of lawyers who assist self-represented litigants, entitled An Analysis of Rules that Enable Lawyers to Serve Pro Se Litigants. The paper discusses recently adopted provisions of the ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct, as well as several rules within the states’ ethics codes and rules of procedure. Issues include document preparation, limited court appearances and withdrawal procedures and proper communications between lawyers and pro se litigants. The paper is designed to assist policy-makers assess the issues and includes a checklist of factors to consider.

Memo from Bob Echols to Chief Justice Saufley RE Unbundling in Other States

Dear Chief Justice Saufley:

This is to follow up on your request for information about whether there other states with unbundling rules have any practical benefits to report.

The five other states with unbundling rules are Colorado , Florida , Montana , Washington  and Wyoming . I have been in touch with my contacts (state bar or bar foundation staff) in each of the states. With the exception of Florida , none of them were able to offer any information about practical benefits from the new rules to date. I also contacted the counsel for the ABA Delivery of Legal Services Committee, which has been promoting the concept, and he was similarly unable to provide anything.

In Florida , when the rule was adopted, the Supreme Court ordered the state bar to monitor its implementation and report back.  The report is available on-line:
Click here for the report

Basically, it reports some positive experience on the part of judges and attorneys with limited representation. However, the number of respondents to the survey was quite low. The report concludes that additional education about the new rule is needed if it is to fulfill its potential.

The responses from the other states also suggest to me that the level of awareness of the new rules there is quite low.  So it seems that it will be difficult to make a strong case for this approach on a practical, as distinct from theoretical, level until the states involved have had more experience with the rule, and that for the rules to have a significant impact, more efforts to educate the bar will be needed. Hopefully, our “lawyer of the day” pilot project will provide some persuasive evidence about the benefit of the rule, at least in this context.

I have been working recently with Montana Chief Justice Karla Gray on Access to Justice issues and I mentioned your interest to her. She would be happy to strategize with you. Also, as a result of my note, she has asked the state bar staff to consider an article in the state bar journal about the new rules and their potential.

Please let me know if I can provide any further information.

Best wishes,

Bob Echols
Director, Access to Justice Support Project

Various State Court Rules on Unbundling

California
California Rules of Court, Rule 5.70, Nondisclosure of attorney assistance in preparation of court documents, permits a lawyer to draft pleadings in family law matters without disclosure.
California Rules of Court, Rule 5.71, Application to be relieved as counsel upon completion of limited scope representation, details the procedure governing limited appearances in family law matters.

Colorado
Colorado Rules of Civil Procedure and Rules of Professional Conduct enabling unbundled services, including
C.R.C.P. 11, requiring lawyers who prepare pleadings in limited representation to sign them;
C.R.C.P. 121, clarifying that the preparation of pleadings does not constitute an appearance;
RPC 1.2, clarifying that a lawyer may ethically provide limited services;
RPC 4.2 and 4.3, creating a presumption that a party receiving limited services is unrepresented insofar as communications with the party are concerned.

Florida
Florida Rule of Professional Conduct 4-1.2(c), limited representation explicitly permitted, but consent must be in writing;
Florida Rule of Professional Conduct 4-4.2(b), establishing the presumption that a self-represented party is unrepresented unless notified to the contrary in writing;
Florida Rule of Professional Conduct 4-4.3(b), establishing the presumption that a self-represented party is unrepresented unless notified to the contrary in writing.

Maine
Maine Bar Rules enabling unbundled legal services include:
Maine Bar Rule 3.4(i), explicitly allowing limited representation and allowing a lawyer to file a limited appearance if the client consents in writing;
Maine Bar Rule 3.5(a)(4) and 3.6(a)(2), clarifying limited representation;
Maine Bar Rule 3.6(f), permitting opposing counsel to communicate with assisted pro se client unless unbundling attorney notifies opposing attorney of representation;
Maine Bar Rule 3.4(j), for nonprofit and legal service programs, imputed conflicts issue only if attorney knows of conflict;
Attachment A to Maine Bar Rule 3.4(i), Limited Representation Agreement.

Maine Rules of Civil Procedure enabling unbundled legal services include:
Maine Rule of Civil Procedure 5 governing service;
Maine Rule of Civil Procedure 11 governing the signing of pleadings;
Maine Rule of Civil Procedure 89(a) governing the withdrawal of attorneys.

Nevada
Rules of Practice of the Eighth Judicial District Court of the State of Nevada, Rule 5.28 requires signed pleadings, notice of the limited representation to the court and governs the procedure for withdrawal.

Washington
Washing Rules of Professional Conduct governing unbundling include:
Rules 1.2(c), permitting the limited scope of representation with consent;
RPC 4.2(b), creating a presumption that a person is unrepresented unless opposing party is notified otherwise;
RPC 4.3(b), creating a presumption that a person is unrepresented unless opposing party is notified otherwise;
RPC 6.5, governing the responsibility to determine conflicts in non-profit and court-annexed limited service programs.

Washington Civil Rules and Washington Civil Rules of Limited Jurisdiction governing unbundling include:
CR 4.2, expressly permitting limited entry of appearance;
CRLJ 4.2, governing limited appearances;
CR 11, permitting a lawyer who assists with drafting to rely on the self-represented party's representation of facts;
CLRJ 11, permitting a lawyer who assists with drafting to rely on the self-represented party's representation of facts;
CR 70.1, expressly allowing limited appearances in litigation;
CRLJ 70.1, expressly allowing limited appearances in litigation.

Wyoming
Wyoming Rules of Professional Conduct 1.1, 1.2(c), and 6.5 govern unbundled legal services.
Appendix to Rule 1.2 provides an approved notice to clients and consent form.
The Uniform Rules of the District Court of the State of Wyoming, Rule 102 governs appearance and withdrawal for unbundled representation.

Last Updated: 9/17/04

LOAN REPAYMENT
LSC Unveils Pilot Loan Repayment Assistance Program
LSC has finalized its plans to launch a pilot Loan Repayment Assistance Program (LRAP), to alleviate some of the financial burden on aspiring and current legal services attorneys who face significant educational debt. The purpose of the pilot program is to obtain data that can be used to evaluate the extent to which an LRAP assists LSC-funded organizations to recruit and retain attorneys with high educational debt burden.

For more information about the LSC pilot program, see www.lsc.gov or send an e-mail to LRAPquestions@lsc.gov. The application form for LSC-funded programs is available at http://www.rin.lsc.gov/rinboard/announcements.htm.

LSC's Loan Repayment Assistance Program (LRAP)
LRAP Press Release; LRAP Report to LSC's Board of Directors  

ABA Loan Repayment Report - The ABA established a special Commission on Loan Repayment and Forgiveness from 2001 - 2003 to examine and report on the effect upon the legal profession of the increasing educational debt burdening law school graduates, specifically those graduates interested to pursue a public service legal career. The Commission developed several products:  http://www.abanet.org/legalservices/lrap/

Lifting the Burden: Law Student Debt as a Barrier to Public Service, The Final Report of the ABA Commission on Loan Repayment and Forgiveness
Meeting the Challenge of Law Student Debt: Loan Repayment Assistance Programs
State LRAP Tool Kit: A Resource Guide for Creating State Loan Repayment Assistance Programs for Public Service Lawyers

Background on the Loan Repayment & Forgiveness - Many of today’s law graduates are faced with law school debt of $80,000 or more upon graduation. For graduates following the standard 10-year repayment schedule, this results in monthly payments of more than $900 for 10 years following graduation. With the average starting public interest salary at $35,000, these mortgage-size debts bar most graduates from pursuing public service legal jobs. Among those graduates who do take such positions, many – when faced with major life decisions such as starting a family – are forced to leave after two to three years of employment.

Loan repayment assistance programs ("LRAPs") have emerged as a solution for relieving the debt burden of some law graduates. LRAPs provide loan forgiveness, lower interest rates on loans, or postponed payment of law school loans to graduates entering specific types of employment, usually law-related public interest jobs. Most LRAPs contain limits on the amount of income a recipient can earn while participating in such a program. There are various types of LRAPs, administered by law schools, state bar foundations and federal and state governments, providing debt relief to some law graduates. However, the number of these programs has not increased appreciably during the past five years, while the average debt burden of law graduates has more than doubled during the same period of time.