Ohio Board Advisory Opinion Op 89-025

The Supreme Court of Ohio
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ON GRIEVANCES AND DISCIPLINE
41 SOUTH HIGH STREET-SUITE 3370, COLUMBUS, OH 43215-6105
(614) 644-5800 FAX: (614) 644-5804
OFFICE OF SECRETARY
OPINION 89-25
Issued August 18, 1989
[CPR Opinion-provides advice under the Ohio Code of Professional Responsibility which is superseded by the Ohio
Rules of Professional Conduct, eff. 2/1/2007.]
SYLLABUS: A legal aid society may send cases they cannot accept due to a conflict of interest to
a volunteer lawyers' project without jeopardizing their right to represent the opposing side in the
controversy. A person calling the legal aid society does not discuss his or her problem with a
lawyer nor give any detailed information other than the general nature of the problem. The Legal
Service Corporation's funding of the volunteer lawyers' project is accomplished through the legal
aid society. This funding must not influence the independent professional judgment of any
volunteer lawyer.
OPINION: We have before us your request for an advisory opinion on whether a city's volunteer
lawyers' project can accept cases which the legal aid society cannot accept due to a conflict of
interest. The volunteer lawyers’ project (VLP) is funded through the legal aid society as required
by a grant from the Legal Service Corporation. In compliance with the Legal Service Corporation's
requirements, the legal aid society does the initial intake screening for cases which may ultimately
be referred to the VLP.
An intake worker at the legal aid society takes the caller's name, address, source and amount of
income, adversary's name and nature of the problem. The files created by the intake workers are
not accessible to the staff attorneys in the legal aid office. The intake worker determines whether it
would be a conflict of interest for the legal aid society to represent the client. If there is no conflict
and the caller meets other requirements, the client is accepted for representation and an
appointment with an attorney is set.
The legal aid society would like to send those clients who pass the initial financial and case type
screening, but show up as a conflict, to the VLP. As you indicate in your letter this would mean
that the legal aid society could be representing a wife in a custody case while a VLP attorney might
be representing the husband in that same action.

Op. 89-25 2
A 1987 Ohio State Bar Association opinion found that it would be a conflict for a legal aid society
to represent the spouse of a person whom they previously referred to a private attorney involvement
project. Ohio State Bar Assn. Informal Op. 87-1(1987). That opinion involved a screening process
whereby the caller gave detailed information of the legal problem involved, thereby creating a
reasonable expectation that the information given by the caller would remain confidential.
In this request, the intake worker merely finds out the nature of the problem and briefly describes it
in the file. In our view, a lawyer-client relationship has not been established at the intake stage. In
this regard, the caller must be made aware that the intake worker is not a lawyer.
The ABA has issued an opinion which allows a legal aid society and a neighborhood law office to
represent different sides in a controversy. ABA Committee on Ethics and Professional
Responsibility, Informal Op. 1309 (1975). In that opinion, the neighborhood law office is funded
through the legal aid society office, similar to the request here. The ABA relied in part on the fact
that there was no other connection between the two offices including, no exchange of personnel or
information and no controlling or supervisory relationship. We believe that the exchange of
information at the screening stage in this request is not detailed enough to create a conflict of
interest.
If the exercise of professional judgment by the lawyer eventually assigned to an indigent client's
case is adversely affected in any way by the screening process or by economic considerations, that
lawyer should decline the proffered employment. Code of Professional Responsibility, DR 5-
105(A). Likewise, the desires of third persons should not be allowed to impair the lawyer's free
judgment. Code of Professional Responsibility, EC 5-21.
One commentator has stated that many legal aid programs "have worked out arrangements with
local bar associations under which the bar will provide pro bono representation to a person eligible
for legal services but whose representation by legal service program lawyers would cause a
conflict.” Wolfram, Modern Legal Ethics, 943 (1986).

Op. 89-25 3
In our view, your legal aid society may send those clients which your office cannot represent due to
a conflict of interest to the VLP. We suggest however, that the legal aid society insure that the files
on callers prepared by intake workers are not accessible to the attorneys in the office. This
becomes essential in cases where the VLP and legal aid society represent opposing parties in a
case. We recommend that each case be handled individually taking into consideration the duty of
confidentiality, the appearance of impropriety and any conflict of interest.
This is an informal, non-binding advisory opinion based upon the facts presented and limited
to questions arising under the Code of Professional Responsibility.