Unbundled+Legal+Services+By+State


 * LINKS, ARTICLES AND ETHICS OPINIONS RELATED TO UNBUNDLED LEGAL SERVICES OR LIMITED SCOPE REPRSENTATION**

NOT STATE-SPECIFIC [|NYTimes article] about unbundling

Ruth S. Stevens, //Unbundling Of Legal Services: Selected Resources//**,** **89 MI Bar Jnl. 54** Sept. 2010. The article provides a list of resources with information and advice for attorneys who would like to expand their practice i by using limited-scope representation and who want to ensure that the practice comports with ethical rules and best practices developed by other attorneys who have experience with limited-scope representation. Link is to LexisNexis article, password required.

Heather Navo, //[|The Limits of "Unbundling" Legal Services],// St. John's Bankruptcy Research Library, Volume 1, 2009, discusses the concept of unbundling and the ethical and legal implications for a bankruptcy attorney who engages in unbundling.

ABA Standing Committee on the Delivery of Legal Services & the Legal Aid Society of Orange County, //[|Unbundling 101: Expanding your practice using limited scope representation]//, March 2009.(39 page pdf)

Forrest Mosten and Lee Borden intro outline about unbundling from Academy of Family Mediators 2000 []

No. 27, Vol. 1 (2009) paper from St. Johns law school []
 * Heather Navo, J.D. Candidate 2010**

This memo will begin with an introduction to the concept of "unbundling" legal services, and will then discuss the ethical and legal implications for a bankruptcy attorney who engages in unbundling. And finally, after discussing the theoretical perspectives of unbundling, the memo will turn to a practical application of unbundling through the attorney Tom Hale, within the scope of Hale v. U.S. Trustee, 509 F.3d 1139 (9th Cir. 2007).

Alliance of Legal Document Assistant Documents http://www.aldap.org/unbundled.htm

Alabama

Alaska Alaska Bar Association []

American Samoa

Arizona

Arkansas

California 1. California Unbundled Practice MCLE self study material: [] 2. California Unbundled Practice Checklist and Guideline: [] 3. Ethics Issues in limited scope representation prepared by California State Bar: []

Colorado

Connecticut

Delaware

District of Columbia Ethics opinion DC []

Florida

Georgia The only reference to "limited scope representation" to be found on the Georgia Bar website (there are none to "unbundled") is in the Spring 2008 Younger Lawyers Division newsletter, at [] (see bottom left of p3), describing a program of the Cobb YLD under which "[l]itigants are ... informed of the various options for legal representation available to them, including the opportunity to obtain limited scope representation for a reduced fee from Cobb YLD and Family Law Section members." So evidently it's OK under Georgia Bar rules, but apparently not widespread. pw

Guam

Hawaii

Idaho

Illinois

Indiana

Iowa

Kansas **In re Wood, 408 B.R. 841 (Bankr. D. Kan. 2009)** (Bankr. D. Kan. 2009) A debtor used a legal services online site that provided unbundled legal services in connection with debt reolution and bankruptcy. The court disallowed any compensation for the attorneys involved and ordered that all funds be returned to the debtor.

Kentucky

Louisiana

Maine

Maryland

Massachusetts

Michigan

Minnesota [] [] Unbundling is permissible under Rule 1.2(c) of the Minnesota Rules of Professional Conduct, which says that a lawyer “may limit the scope of the representation if the limitation is reasonable under the circumstances and the client gives informed consent.” []
 * Family Court Judge Opines on Dangers of Unbundling:**
 * Minnesota Lawyer article on unbundling:**
 * Minnesota State Bar standard limited scope retainer agreement: **

Mississippi

Missouri
 * Missouri Supreme Court Rule 4-1.2(c)** permits limited scope representation (a/k/a unbundling) so long as the client gives "informed consent in a writing signed by the client." A sample form for limited scope representation is included in the comment to the rule. See Missouri Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 4-1.2: Scope of Representation.

Sara Rittman, Legal Ethics Counsel for the State of Missouri, has written an explanation of the rule: Limited Scope Representation a/k/a Unbundled Legal Services.

Montana

Nebraska

Nevada

New Hampshire

New Hampshire Bar Association []

New Jersey

New Mexico There is not a great deal of specific info about unbundled legal services available on the New Mexico Bar website, despite the fact that our state allows limited scope legal representation through NM Rule 16-102(C).

[]
 * ADR and Unbundled Legal Services: Economic Crisis Creates New Opportunities**, an essay by David P. Levin, Director of Court Alternatives, Second Judicial District State Court, New Mexico:

[]
 * Equal Access to Justice: Unlocking Doors**, New Mexico Lawyer Magazine. A discussion of access issues experienced by low-income litigants:

[]
 * Collaborative Divorce**, New Mexico Lawyer Magazine. A discussion of the role of limited scope legal representation in the context of collaborative divorce:

New York article about unbundling and law school clinics

North Carolina

[|2005 Formal Ethics Opinion 10] January 20, 2006 Virtual Law Practice and Unbundled Legal Services []

[|2008 Formal Ethics Opinion 3] January 23, 2009 Assisting a Pro Se Litigant NC bar op. []

Related Opinion Piece on "The Ethical Website," including some information on E-Lawyering []

Primary Source Sites for NC Cases, Codes, Statutes: [] (North Carolina Legislative Library)

[] (North Carolina Office of Administrative Hearings)

[] (FindLaw resource listing for NC)

North Dakota

Northern Marianas Islands

Ohio

Oklahoma

Oregon

Pennsylvania

Quoting from the first paragraph, "Entitled “Ethical Obligations on Maintaining a Virtual Office for the Practice of Law in Pennsylvania”, the PA Bar Association Committee on Legal Ethics and Professional Responsibility published its FEO 2010-200 this month. The opinion is in stark contrast to the out-dated thinking in the ethics opinion discussing virtual law offices published this past spring by its neighboring state of New Jersey." This page also states that the ethical opinion recognizes variations in e-lawyering and makes a distinction between client portals and true virtual lawyers.

[]

Puerto Rico

Rhode Island

South Carolina

South Dakota

Tennessee

Texas

Utah

Vermont

Virginia

Virgin Islands

Washington

West Virginia

Wisconsin

Wyoming