FLORIDA BAR ETHICS OPINION
April 14, 1975
Advisory ethics opinions are not binding.
An attorney who regularly represents a bank in collection matters may not sign and mail
form collection letters completed in material part by bank employees not acting under the
attorney’s supervision and control.
Canon 3; EC 3-6
Vice Chairman Sullivan stated the opinion of the committee:
The inquiring attorney represents a bank and has regularly represented that
institution in collection matters, including preparation of demand letters when
those collection matters are referred to him.
He proposes to prepare a form letter making demand for payment but leaving
blanks for amount, date and other particulars of individual loans. He would
furnish the bank with his form letter together with a supply of his stationery. Bank
employees would then prepare individual letters, inserting the correct amounts
and date and then return the unsigned letters to the attorney for review, signature
He asks for the Committee’s opinion as to the propriety of this procedure.
The Committee is of the opinion that the proposed procedure is improper and violates
Canon 3. While EC 3-6 approves and encourages delegation of work to lay persons, it requires
that the attorney maintain a direct relationship with the client, supervise the delegated work and
have complete professional responsibility for the work product.
These requirements are not met when the letters are mass produced as part of an outside
operation and where the professional responsibility consists solely in signing letters prepared by
In Opinion 70-27, the Committee condemned a similar proposal which differed from the
present one only in the fact that the demand letters contained the client’s return address. The
Committee sees no difference between the two.