The Florida Bar

Ethics Opinion

Opinion 70-62

February 12, 1971
Advisory ethics opinions are not binding.
Lay personnel may be used in a law office only to the extent that they are delegated mechanical,
clerical or administrative duties. The attorney may not ethically delegate to a lay employee any
activity which requires the attorney’s personal judgment and participation.

EC 3-5, 3-6

Chairman Massey stated the opinion of the committee:
Inquiry is made pertaining to the use of lay personnel within a law office. The
opinion will be divided into two parts.
The first portion is quoted from the inquiry as follows:
We anticipate using the lay person in the real estate field to handle the
following matters:
1. After the contract between the parties has been executed and a file set up
by the attorney’s secretary, the file will be delivered to the lay specialist who will
obtain all preliminary data. This would include location and ordering of abstracts
and survey where appropriate, checking our internal files to determine if a prior
opinion or title policy has been issued by our firm on said property, obtaining
pay-off or assumption figures on existing mortgages and liens and, in general,
gathering all necessary data involving said transaction.
2. We envision that after the contract stage the next time the file would come
back to the attorney would be after the abstract continuation, surveys, and all
necessary data has been compiled. The lay assistant would then forward the file
back to the responsible attorney with all such data included. The responsible
attorney would then examine the abstract and dictate either an Opinion of Title or
title binder based on his examination. The file would then go back to the lay
assistant who would, following the directives of the attorney, prepare closing
statements, and notify all parties of the scheduled closing.
3. All work and documents prepared by the lay assistant would be forwarded
back to the responsible attorney at some predetermined time prior to the closing
for the attorney’s review and approval.
4. The attorney closes the real estate transaction.

5. After the closing the attorney forwards a file back to the lay assistant with
appropriate directives as to the recording of documents, pay off of any liens, and
disbursements of expenses not disbursed during the closing.
The Committee basically approves the proposal as outlined in the inquiry finding that
there is no ethical problem. The sole reservation to be expressed by the Committee is that the
attorney should at no time leave to the lay employee those matters calling for the expertise of an
attorney. For example, if lay personnel prepare all closing documents, such lay personnel should
not be allowed to draw complicated escrow agreements or other collateral contracts. See Canon 3
and ethical considerations thereunder (EC 3-5 and 3-6).
The second part of the inquiry is not quite as easy to answer. It asks of the propriety of:
. . . In the probate field we propose the utilization of lay personnel to prepare
estate forms, accountings, tax returns, obtain necessary facts from outside sources
for preparation of such estate pleadings, and perform other duties of this nature. In
the litigation field we propose utilization of lay personnel to index depositions,
prepare interrogatories, prepare schedules of witnesses to be deposed, schedules
of witnesses necessary for trial, summarize facts, interview witnesses, and other
such related matters. We propose that all work done by a lay person in our office
shall be reviewed and approved by a responsible attorney before any item either
goes to the files or outside of the office as a completed item of work.
These plans are similar to the proposal as to real estate transactions but not as detailed.
Again, the Committee does recognize and approve the use of lay personnel in probate and
litigation under the appropriate considerations of Canon 3. Delegation to lay employees of the
mechanical, clerical and administrative duties is encouraged. However, the attorney may not
ethically delegate an activity in which he personally should give his judgment and participation.
While generally approving the concept stated in this second part of the inquiry, the
Committee gives it but a qualified approval as the Committee would prefer to determine such
matters on specific factual cases. This is true because the Committee does have reservations as to
authorizing lay personnel to prepare interrogatories and to interview all witnesses in every case.
What may be permissible in a “run-of-the-mill” case may not be so in complicated, unusual