In early June 2005, a New York court disbarred an attorney for malpractice in the neglect of eleven immigration cases due to negligent delegation of duties to non-attorneys.  This case stands as a warning for lawyers and clients hoping to reduce their costs of service by using an outsourced back office of non-lawyers. The case shows the public interest in regulation.

Background. 
The attorney had referred the cases to non-attorney service providers that, as paralegals, specialized in the preparation of immigration petitions.  One client complained that the attorney was nothing more than a "front" for the non-attorney service providers.  The court ruled that attorneys cannot delegate their responsibility for rendering legal services. 

Negligence. 
In this case, the attorney was found to have delegated work to a paralegal, failing to supervise the accuracy and timeliness of the work product.  The disbarment was not just as a result of one case of negligent supervision of non-lawyers, but based on a pattern of neglect and dereliction of duty across a spectrum of clients.

    Lessons Learned.  

• Principle of Non-Delegation of Attorney-Client Relationship.  The allegation about being a "front" for the paralegal service provider underscores the attorney's duty to maintain and manage the attorney-client relationship.  This duty cannot be delegated.  The attorney must personally provide his or her own advice to the client directly, without relying upon a paralegal.  
  

• Principle of Supervision of Non-Lawyers.  The canons of ethics and disciplinary rules clearly delineate the lawyer's duty to supervise, manage and control non-lawyers who are assisting in the provision of legal services.   In the field of outsourcing that supports lawyers, a law firm or law department is clearly responsible for any malpractice or neglect by outsourcing service providers hired to support any legal function.  Such functions can be critical to the legal outcome, relating to compliance with court rules, legislation or regulation.    This principle applies regardless of the type of outsourced services, including assistance in computer forensics, document management, patent application drafting, incorporations or other commercial law service.
  

• Principle of Caveat Emptor.  The claim that an attorney is only a "front" for a non-attorney service provider is particularly devastating to the attorney's position of trust and confidence and, by implication, to the legal profession generally.  Attorneys who regularly delegate paralegal functions to non-attorneys have a duty to explain to their clients that the work being performed by non-attorneys is not the work of an attorney.  As to legal questions, the advice of a paralegal should not be taken as the advice of a lawyer.  
  
  In this situation, the attorney might have mitigated the risks of neglect and malpractice by including in an attorney-client legal services retainer agreement a provision warning the clients about this distinction.  At least the most damaging claim, of being a "front" for the non-attorney service provider, might have been avoided, and the attorney might have escaped disbarment.
  

• SLA 's for Outsourced Legal Services.  If the disbarred attorney had tied the non-lawyer service providers to service levels that required reporting and visibility of performance and challenges, he might have kept his law license.   Any outsourcing should include appropriate project management and reporting requirements.