Published by Ohio's Supreme Court in response to the growth of legal outsourcing, the document advises lawyers in the state that the use of LPO meets Ohio's professional and ethical standards.
As the opinion marks the first time that a state Supreme Court has given official approval to legal outsourcing, the move is likely to boost the US profile of LPO services, which are used widely by IP lawyers as a cost-effective means of fulfilling client demands.
In the opinion, the court's Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline says that the state's rules of professional conduct 'do not prohibit an Ohio lawyer or law firm from outsourcing legal support services domestically or abroad, either directly to lawyers or non-lawyers or indirectly through an independent service provider'. However, it adds that 'applicable rules do impose significant ethical requirements'.
The Board identified the series of tasks that it feels can be ethically transferred to legal outsourcing providers: 'Preparation of trial or appellate briefs, drafting of pleadings or motions, document review, legal research, and deposition or trial summaries.' Sending tasks such as these offshore has become a key cost-control tool for IP lawyers and in-house law departments, as businesses rich in intellectual assets expand around the globe.
Ohio's main stipulation for best practice was an assurance of client confidentiality. The Board recommended that lawyers should undertake detailed discussions with their clients to determine the nature of the information that could be shared with service providers. And it supported that recommendation with a warning to lawyers who argue that an open revelation of material is implicit in outsourcing arrangements. 'Such contention fails to pass ethical muster,' said the Board. 'Client confidentiality is a hallmark of the attorney-client relationship.'
Noting that legal outsourcing 'is not an entirely new phenomenon', the Board explained that it had decided on a related issue as long ago as 1990. At the time, the Board was required to consider 'the ethical propriety of a proposed business venture that would provide lawyers, law firms, sole practitioners and corporate legal departments with the placement and use of temporary lawyers'.
State lawyers were advised that the domestic-based venture was ethical, as long as it operated within strict, ethical guidelines. In light of the challenges that globalisation has posed to legal business, the Ohio Supreme Court said that the time had come to consider the ethics of sending work overseas.
The opinion adds to a growing recognition of legal outsourcing within a range of high-level US law societies. In 2007, the city bar groups of New York, San Diego and Los Angeles gave their blessings to LPO-related ethics, along with the state bar associations of Florida and North Carolina. Their opinions were backed last year by the American Bar Association.
Ohio's Supreme Court regulates the admission of attorneys into practice and governs all procedures in courts throughout the state. It also serves as a disciplinary group in cases where practice rules have been violated.
