In Re: Formal Advisory Opinion 24-1

The State Bar of Georgia asked the Supreme Court of Georgia to review a proposed Formal Advisory Opinion about a growing practice: lawyers, especially those hired and paid by insurance companies, using outside vendor companies to send requests for medical records and other documents to non-parties in lawsuits. The Bar's Formal Advisory Opinion Board drafted an opinion answering whether this is allowed under the Georgia Rules of Professional Conduct, posted it for member comment, made one small footnote change, and then filed it with the court for discretionary review. The court agreed to review the opinion and, after considering the record and the Bar's brief, approved it as written. The approved opinion says lawyers may use such vendors, but only if the lawyer still exercises real oversight, remains able to give competent representation, and does not let an insurer or anyone else control the lawyer's professional judgment.

A lawyer may use a third-party vendor to request and follow up on document production from non-parties under O.C.G.A. § 9-11-34(c), so long as the lawyer retains the ability to supervise the vendor and the arrangement does not interfere with the lawyer's competence or independent professional judgment, including when an insurer directs the arrangement.

Lawyers who represent insured clients, especially in personal injury and medical-records-heavy litigation, now have official guidance on when they may delegate document requests to outside vendors without violating ethics rules, while insurers cannot force arrangements that compromise a lawyer's independent judgment.

Formal Advisory Opinion No. 24-1 approved

1. The court noted that Bar Rule 4-403 sets out a process for drafting, publishing for comment, and filing Formal Advisory Opinions, and that the Board followed this process before petitioning for discretionary review.
2. The Georgia Rules of Professional Conduct (the ethics rules governing lawyers) allow lawyers to use nonlawyer assistants, including outside vendors, to help represent clients, so long as the lawyer makes reasonable efforts to ensure the assistant's conduct matches the lawyer's own professional obligations.
3. Applying that framework, the court reasoned that a lawyer may delegate document-request tasks to a vendor only if the lawyer retains real supervisory authority over the vendor's work and can direct its actions.
4. The court further reasoned that such delegation is improper if it interferes with the lawyer's duty of competent representation or the lawyer's exercise of independent professional judgment, particularly when an insurer paying the lawyer tries to dictate use of a specific vendor.
5. Because Rule 5.4(c) bars a person who pays a lawyer to represent someone else from directing the lawyer's professional judgment, the court concluded that a lawyer must refuse or withdraw if a vendor arrangement threatens that independence.

• attorney ethics
• third-party vendors
• document requests
• insurance defense lawyers
• State Bar advisory opinion