Outsourcing and UPL; Duty to Inform Client of Outsourcing

Did an Attorney Aid in the Unlicensed Practice of Law by Using a Legal Research Company in India? (No.) Does the Attorney Have to Tell the Client about the Outsourcing? (Yes)

A California used a legal research company (LegalWorks) in India “at a rate far lower than American lawyers could charge clients if they did the work themselves. ” The ethics opinion of the San Diego Bar Association concluded that the India company was not engaged in the practice of law because its work was for the hiring attorney and there was no direct contact between the Indian company and the California attorney’s client. The client of the California attorney should be told about the outsourcing. California attorneys act properly “only if they have sufficient knowledge to supervise the outsourced work properly and they make sure the outsourcing does not compromise their other duties to their clients. However, they would not satisfy their obligations to their clients unless they informed the client of Legalworks’ anticipated involvement at the time they decided to use the firm.” “We believe that, in the absence of a specific understanding between the attorney and client to the contrary, the ‘reasonable expectation’ of the client is that the attorney retained by the client, using the resources within the attorney’s firm, will perform the work required to develop the legal theories and arguments to be presented to the trial court.”

Source: San Diego County Bar Association

Bill Statsky

statsky.blogspot.com