Ohio Board Advisory Opinion Op 89-004

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 89-004
Issued February 17, 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[CPR Opinion-provides advice under the Ohio Code of Professional Responsibility which is superseded by the Ohio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 Service project's governing board has the authority to set priorities for the
allocation of resources in the legal service office. Such activity on the part of the governing board
is not a violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility. However, once a case is undertaken
and after the client is informed of any limitations relating to the representation, the governing board
may not interfere with the representation.
OPINION: We have before us your request for an advisory opinion on whether a legal service
corporation's policy which restricts representation for victims of domestic violence solely to
domestic violence petitions and not divorces (with some specified exceptions) is in any way a
violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Specifically, your questions are as follows:
1. Does the program's policy interfere with the duty of an attorney
employed by the program to zealously represent a client who desires
a divorce? (See DR 7-101 (A)).
2. Does the policy interfere with the independent judgment of an
attorney employed by the program when the attorney's client desires a
divorce and, in the attorney's judgment, a divorce is necessary to
afford the client complete relief? (See DR 5-107 (B)).
3. Does the policy impermissibly limit the representation of an
attorney employed by the program when the attorney's client desires a
divorce? (Cf. DR 2-108 (A)).

Op. 89-004 2
As your letter indicates, the Legal Service Corporation regulations require each governing
body to adopt priorities for allocating resources in an economical and effective manner. 45 C.F.R.
Part 1620. In this regard and according to your request, the legal services project's governing body
that you work for has adopted such a priority plan. Supra. Furthermore, clients are informed of the
"no divorce" policy before representation is undertaken.
To begin with, we agree with the ABA's position that ". . . it is already recognized that in
the face of limited resources, legal service offices must establish priorities for handling matters and
accepting new clients." ABA Committee on Ethics and Professional Responsibility, Formal Op.
347 (1981). Although we are sympathetic to your concerns, such limitations upon the activities of
a legal service office are not prohibited under the Code of Professional Responsibility. ABA
Committee on Ethics and Professional Responsibility, Formal Op. 334 (1974).
Such priority settings are to take the form of broad guidelines rather than case-by-case
review. Wolfram, Modern Legal Ethics 943 (1986). “Of course, any restrictions on representation
must be made in accordance with the requirements of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
ABA Committee on Ethics and Professional Responsibility, Formal Op. 334 (1974). Thus, once
representation is undertaken both DR 5-107 (B) and DR 7-101 prohibit interference with that
representation. Id. In other words, the governing body should not interfere with a lawyer's
handling of a particular case. Wolfram, Modern Legal Ethics 943 (1986). However, there are
certain decisions during the representation which may require approval of a director or governing
board. See, e.g., 45 C.F.R. § 1617.
In regard to your third question, we do not agree that DR 2-108 (A) applies to this situation.
That Code provision relates to restricting a lawyer's right to practice after termination of the
employment relationship.
In conclusion, it is our opinion and you are so advised that a legal service organization's
governing body's adoption of priorities for allocation of an office's resources is required under 45
C.F.R. § 1620 and does not run afoul of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Implementing
priorities must be made if resources are to be effectively utilized provided it is done "fairly and
reasonably with the objective of making maximum legal services available, within the limits of
available resources." ABA Committee on Ethics and Professional Responsibility, Formal Op. 334
(1974).

Op. 89-004 3
This is an informal, non-binding advisory opinion based upon the facts presented and limited
to questions arising under the Code of Professional Responsibility.