Bar to pick up international outsourcing debate in July.

A proposed ethics opinion on outsourcing paralegal work to India will not go to the Bar Board of Governors until its July meeting while a board committee ponders a possible amendment.

And on another proposed opinion, the board asked the Professional Ethics Committee to take another look at a question of whether a law firm could share with its client court-awarded damages for bad faith conduct by the opposing party.

The board heard a report on both items at its May 30 meeting in Key West.

Larry Sellers, chair of the Board Review Committee on Professional Ethics, told the board that the committee wanted to consider additional language for the proposed outsourcing opinion, based on comments submitted by Bar members.

Specifically, committee members want to see verbiage addressing the issue of giving reasonable notification to opposing parties if legal work on a case is being sent overseas. The committee then voted 5-0 to recommend the board wait until July to consider the opinion.

As drafted by the PEC, the final opinion concluded there was no ethical prohibition to outsourcing paralegal work, although the opinion noted some special considerations might apply: the supervising lawyers might need to take extra steps to ensure that confidential information was protected; that the foreign firm doing the paralegal work has no conflicts of interest; and that the firm understands Florida ethical rules. Also, additional steps might be required to protect client information which would most likely be transferred electronically to the foreign paralegals.

The opinion also said the client should be informed that information is being sent overseas, but stopped short of saying it was required.

Critics of the opinion said there was no way for Florida lawyers to guarantee confidential information would be protected, that such information could wind up subject to the jurisdiction of foreign courts, and that it should be mandatory for the client to be told information was being sent offshore. They had also noted that information from and about the opposing party could be included in information sent overseas where it could be compromised.

The second issue, Sellers said, dealt with a court award of fees and costs to an attorney that included a heightened award as a sanction for bad actions by the opposing side and its lawyers. The inquiring attorney asked if the award could be shared with the client.

Bar staff initially declined to answer the question, saying it was a legal question on whether the award belonged to the client or the attorney. The Professional Ethics Committee refused to weigh in for the same reason.

The inquiring attorney then appealed to the Board of Governors, and added the stipulation that the BRCPE should assume the costs were awarded to the law firm.

Sellers said the committee voted to return the matter to the PEC and ask it to reconsider the issue based on the new assumption.