Model Rule 5.7: Responsibilities Regarding Law-Related Services

When it applies

This comes up when lawyers run side businesses (e.g., a title company, consulting firm, or financial planning service) connected to their law practice, and clients may be confused about whether they're getting the protections of the attorney-client relationship. On the MPRE, expect fact patterns testing whether the lawyer took adequate steps to distinguish the non-legal service from legal representation.

What the rule requires

• The full Rules of Professional Conduct apply to law-related services the lawyer provides in circumstances that are not distinct from the lawyer's provision of legal services to clients. In that situation the Rules apply regardless of any disclaimer or other measures the lawyer takes; the 'reasonable measures' safe harbor is not available.
• If the services are provided in other circumstances by a separate entity that the lawyer controls, alone or with others, the Rules still apply. This is so if the lawyer fails to take reasonable measures to ensure the recipient knows the services are not legal services and that the protections of the client-lawyer relationship (like confidentiality under 1.6 and conflicts under 1.7) do not exist.
• The lawyer must take reasonable measures at the outset of the relationship to clarify the nature of the services being offered
• If the lawyer controls an entity providing law-related services and there's no clear distinction, ethical obligations attach to that entity's services as well
• The determination of whether measures were 'reasonable' is fact-specific, considering the sophistication of the recipient and the circumstances

Exceptions

• The full Rules do not automatically extend to law-related services when both of the following are true: (1) the services are provided by a separate entity the lawyer controls, in circumstances distinct from the lawyer's legal services; and (2) the lawyer takes reasonable measures to ensure the recipient understands that the services are not legal services and that the usual protections of the client-lawyer relationship do not apply. This exception is not available when the lawyer provides the services in circumstances not distinct from the lawyer's legal services.
• This exception can still fail if the totality of the circumstances (e.g., how the services are marketed, physical co-location, shared branding) would lead a reasonable person to believe they're still getting legal protections

How the MPRE tests Model Rule 5.7

• Students assume that simply operating the non-legal business under a different name or separate entity is automatically enough to escape Rule 5.7 coverage — it is not, if the distinction isn't made clear to the client
• Confusing this rule with 1.8 (business transactions with clients) — 5.7 is about the nature/character of services offered, not about a lawyer entering a business deal with an existing client
• Failing to recognize that confidentiality (1.6) and conflicts rules (1.7) may or may not apply depending on whether adequate disclosure was made
• Overlooking that the burden is on the lawyer to make the distinction clear — silence or ambiguity defaults to full Rule coverage