I noticed that an attorney was suspended for six months the other day for "ghost lawyering."  Basically, that is where the attorney agrees to help out a pro se litigant by either helping them prepare papers for filing, or preparing them entirely.  Basically, the Board of Professional responsibility for the state that licensed the attorney said that such conduct violates the rule requiring attorneys not to engage in "misrepresentation, fraud or deceit."

I've read over the rule and looked at what the lawyer did to get suspended, and I have to say that I just can't agree with the board that he deserved suspension.  I just don't see that helping a pro se litigant rises to the level of misrepresentation, fraud or deceit. The board based its decision upon their opinion that the court and opposing counsel were deceived into believing that the pro se litigant was acting without benefit of specialized legal knowledge.  I guess they might have cut the guy some slack or something, which they would not have done had they known he was getting help (or if he had been represented).  But that's pretty thin, in my humble opinion (and this, like everything else in this blog, represents only my opinion).

My thinking is that one purpose of the rules is to help ensure the availability of low cost, quality, legal representation of people in need.  How does a rule that places such a draconian penalty on helping someone who either desires to, or must for financial reasons, proceed pro se advance that purpose?  How was anyone harmed by the non-disclosure? Did the pro se litigant win a case he should not have won? Would he not have won had the back-door advice been disclosed?

Anyway, my opinion counts for nothing in these matters. All that I, or any of us, need do is attempt to comply with the rulings and interpretations of the rules, to the best of our ability.  And, I suppose, to make our opinions known so that perhaps the people who have the authority to reconsider these things take a longer look at them.

~Tim