San Diego County Bar Association – Formal Opinion on Legal Outsourcing India
A partner in a two-lawyer California litigation firm was contacted by a business acquaintance to defend a complex intellectual property dispute in San Diego Superior Court. The attorney and his partner had limited experience in intellectual property litigation.
The attorney nonetheless took the case and assured the client of his firm’s ability to develop a solid understanding of the areas of law involved. Without telling his client, the attorney contracted on an hourly basis with Legalworks, a firm in India whose business is to do legal research, develop case strategy, prepare deposition outlines, and draft correspondence, pleadings, and motions in American intellectual property cases at a rate far lower than American lawyers could charge clients if they did the work themselves. None of the foreign-licensed attorneys at Legalworks held law licenses in any American jurisdiction.
The California attorney reviewed the work he got from Legalworks and signed all court submissions and communications with opposing counsel himself. The work of Legal works was billed to the client at cost, but was classified on the bills in broad categories such as “legal research” or “preparation of pleadings.”
Ultimately, the attorney and his partner obtained dismissal of the case on a summary judgment motion. When the client asked how the attorneys developed the theory on which summary judgment was granted, and had done the work so inexpensively, the attorney told him that virtually all of the work was done by India-based Legal works.
The Committee concludes that outsourcing does not dilute the attorney’s professional responsibilities to his client, but may result in unique applications in the way those responsibilities are discharged. Under the hypothetical as we have framed it, the California attorneys may satisfy their obligations to their client in the manner in which they used Legalworks, but 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 to the extent stated in this hypothetical.
The important effect of that conclusion is that corporations, at least, may not directly contract with non-California attorneys to represent them in court in California absent pro hac vice admission of the attorney by the court. “As a general rule, it is well established in California that a corporation cannot represent itself in a court of record either in propria persona or through an officer or agent who is not an attorney.” (Caressa Camille, Inc. v. Alcoholic Beverage Control Appeals Bd. (2002) 99 Cal.App.4th 1094, 1101, citations omitted. See also Rule of Court 965, requiring registration of non-California in-house counsel advising corporations with California contacts and prohibiting their appearance in court absent pro hac vice admission.)
Through a somewhat different route, we reach the same general conclusion on this point as our colleagues in the Los Angeles County Bar Association. (See LACBA Professional Responsibility and Ethics Committee Opinion No. 518 (June 19, 2006) pp. 5-6 (“LACBA Opinion”). See also, Association of the Bar of the City of New York Committee on Professional and Judicial Ethics, Formal Opinion 2006-3 (August 2006).)
See LACBA Opinion at p. 9: “[I]n performing services for the client, the attorney must remain ultimately responsible for any work product on behalf of the client and cannot delegate to [outsourcing] Company any authority over legal strategy, questions of judgment, or the final content of any product delivered to the client or filed with the court. [] It follows that if a term of the agreement between the attorney and Company delegates to Company a decision-making function that is non-delegable, then the attorney may be assisting Company in the unauthorized practice of law or violating the ethical duties of competence and obligation to exercise independent professional judgment.” We differ only in not qualifying the conclusion that such an abdication of a non-delegable duty would constitute assisting in the unauthorized practice of law in violation of RPC 1-300.
We do not address the interesting and perhaps fact-specific question whether an attorney who is incompetent to evaluate the work of an outsourced contractor, even if he retains control over the matter and exercise such independent judgment as he can, would indeed violate the prohibition on assisting the contractor in the unauthorized practice of law. For a discussion of the duty of competence, see infra Section (C)(1).
The client’s reasonable expectation does not preclude use of employees of the attorney’s firm, including partners, associate attorneys and paralegals, to perform work on the case, including research and drafting of documents. It should not ordinarily preclude other attorneys of the firm from making appearances on behalf of the client.
We note that California Rule of Professional Conduct 1-100 (B)(3) defines the term “lawyer” to include members of the State Bar of California, attorneys licensed in other state, the District of Columbia, and United States territories, “or is admitted in good standing and eligible to practice before the bar of the highest court of, a foreign country or any political subdivision thereof.”
In this case, of course, the ABA Model Rule is only applicable by analogy. As set forth in part II.A above, the work was not delegated and the person doing the work was not a California attorney. That, however, imposes more of a supervisory burden on the attorney not less of one.
Under India’s attorney-client privilege, no attorney may: “(i) disclose any communication made to him in the course of or for the purpose of his employment as such attorney, by or on behalf of his client; (ii) state the contents or condition of any document with which he has become acquainted in the course of and for the purpose of his professional employment; or (iii) disclose any advise [sic] given by him to his client in the course and for the purpose of such employment.” (Indian Evidence Act of 1972, quoted at www.lexmundi.com, India.) The attorney-client privilege is more limited than in America. For example, “[a]n in-house counsel is not recognized as an ‘attorney’ under Indian law. Thus, professional communications between an in-house counsel and officers, directors and employees are not protected as privileged communications between an attorney and his client. . . .” (lexmuni.com, India. Compare: “In Upjohn Co. v. United States (1981) 449 U.S. 383, 101 S.Ct. 677, 66 L.Ed.2d 584, the United States Supreme Court expanded the previous ‘control group test’ and held that all confidential communications concerning the scope of their employment between corporate employees and the corporation’s in-house counsel are covered by the attorney-client privilege.” Chicago Title Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (1985) 174 Cal.App.3d 1142, 1151 holding, however, that attorney-client privilege did not apply where in-house counsel merely acted as a negotiator, gave business advice, or otherwise acted as company’s business agent. (Ibid).)
