Court rule allows emergency aid to some clients

The Missouri Supreme Court is making it easier for pro bono and public interest lawyers to give emergency financial assistance to clients in need.

The court issued a rule on Nov. 23 that creates a new exception to its Rule 4-1.8, which governs prohibited transactions that can create a conflict of interest. The new exception says lawyers representing indigent clients pro bono — including through nonprofit legal services, public interest organizations, law school clinical programs and other pro bono programs — “may provide emergency financial assistance to the client, whether monetary or in-kind, for food, housing, transportation, medicine, and other basic necessities.”

Dan Glazier, executive director of Legal Services of Eastern Missouri, said in an interview that the rule change, which his organization helped propose to the Supreme Court last year, gives attorneys more flexibility to help clients who need help with everything from paying rent to fleeing domestic violence.

“We operate in emergencies, in doing what needs to be done to help sustain our clients’ and their families’ lives,” he said. “This gives us another tool to be able to do that in limited circumstances.” 

The exception, which went into effect immediately, has caveats. Lawyers cannot promise such assistance prior to being retained or use it to continue the retention. They also can’t seek or accept reimbursement from the client or their family and friends; they also can’t use it to drum up business by publicizing or advertising it to prospective clients.

“Emergency financial assistance is allowed only in specific circumstances where it is unlikely to create conflicts of interest or invite abuse,” the court says in a lengthy commentary. It adds that such assistance is reasonable if the financial hardship “would otherwise prevent the client from instituting or maintaining the proceedings or from withstanding delays that put substantial pressure on the client to settle.”

Generally, attorneys are prohibited from providing financial assistance to clients in connection with pending or potential litigation. Prior to the rule change, the only exceptions were to allow lawyers to advance court costs and expenses in contingency-fee cases or to pay them on behalf of indigent clients.

Those exceptions remain unaffected, and the rule’s commentary stresses that lawyers can’t provide assistance in cases where they may eventually recover a fee, other than in cases where the representation involves a fee-shifting statute.

Glazier said LSEM originally asked the Supreme Court to issue a rule that encompassed the state’s four Legal Services organizations. It was the court, he said, that broadened it to cover all types of attorneys that provide pro bono legal representation.

Providing aid to clients is not new. Glazier said LSEM partners with about 150 agencies that provide funds and services. However, under the prior rule, the legal organization had to have a third party administer the aid. Allowing direct help is not only more efficient, he said, but it reduces the complexity for clients.

“When you’re in stress, when you’re in need, when you’re in a crisis situation, you can only grab onto so many life rafts,” Glazier said.