The use of freelance, temporary, or contract attorneys raises several ethical questions.  The first concern is whether an Off-Site Associate-type arrangement is permissible under relevant ethical rules. The next concern is whether the arrangement would be profitable, practical, and beneficial to all parties.  Research revealed that the professional relationship proposed here is permissible, profitable, practical, and a benefit to the Off-Site Associate, retaining attorney, and client.

The Relationship
The Ethics Committees refer to temporary attorneys, contract attorneys, or independent contractors, we prefer the term “freelance lawyer” because it includes the concept of specialist and expertise is a bedrock principle of the Off-Site Associates approach to practice.  The Ethics Committees vary on the details, but all concur that attorneys and firms may use unassociated attorneys to serve clients.  Having settled the threshold matter, significant issues remained about billing, disclosure, and conflicts.

Billing & Economics
The initial concern about billing was whether a contract attorney's fee was an "expense" or a "legal service." If, in every case, a fee paid to contract lawyer was an “expense” to the retaining attorney, Off-Site Associates would not exist.  As skilled attorneys we provide “legal services” and become profit centers for a firm.

Legal Services  v. Expenses
Unless agreed otherwise, an attorney must pass “expenses” through to the client largely unchanged. Therefore, an attorney will  typically seek the lowest cost provider for fungible commodities that fall into the category of "expenses."

On the other hand, an attorney can add a profit to a fee paid to an attorney for "legal services" rendered. Law firms do this everyday.  A firm hires an associate at a salary of $100,000 per year, or $50 per hour for a standard work schedule. Once the firm pays for benefits, increased office space, secretary, taxes, and all the rest, that associate may cost the firm $150,000 a year, or $75 per hour.  Of course, there is also the cost of locating, interviewing, and training a new associate in addition to the amount of time before an associate becomes profitable. Because that associate delivers "legal services," the firm can bill those services to the client at a rate far greater that what the associate costs the firm. The clients are not privy to the internal cost structure of the firm and the amount of the total fee is governed by the familiar rules governing legal fees, including the skill of the attorney, complexity of the matter, etc.

We chose the name “Off-Site Associates” precisely because the relationship we propose retains this economic dynamic. The  opinions call the profit made by  a retaining attorney a "surcharge."  However, unlike a traditional associate, we are profitable the first time, and every time you use us.

Disclosure
The Ethics Committees agree that as the contract attorney’s involvement increases, the retaining attorney's duty to disclose that involvement also increases. However, the Committees disagree about as to whether disclosure is required in all cases or when the contact attorney learns privileged information. Given the nature of an Off-Site Associate, it is likely that disclosure would be appropriate in most cases.

In the event of disclosure, we think it would be nice to disclose the involvement of a specialist. To assist your disclosure, we provide comprehensive information about ourselves on this site and as we grow we will remain dedicated to full disclosure about the identity, location, and skills of every attorney that may become affiliated with Off-Site Associates.

Conflicts of Interest
As a practical matter, we are not yet big enough to raise many actual conflicts. However, we are prepared for any number of Off-Site Associates and clients. We use sophisticated systems to catalog and search all information for potential conflicts. Moreover, our systems can be configured to isolate specialty groups from each other to minimize actual disqualification.