Certified Legal Professional (CLP) Practice Exam

An attorney hires a non-lawyer as Chief Technology Strategist who does not make legal judgments. Is the attorney subject to discipline?

1. Yes, because legal fees fund the profit-sharing plan

2. Yes, because the Chief Technology Strategist makes more money than some lawyers

3. No, because the Chief Technology Strategist is included in the profit-sharing arrangement

4. No, because the Chief Technology Strategist does not participate in legal decisions

The correct answer is: No, because the Chief Technology Strategist is included in the profit-sharing arrangement

The correct answer reflects the understanding that hiring a non-lawyer as a Chief Technology Strategist is permissible when that individual does not engage in the practice of law or make legal judgments. In this context, the inclusion of the Chief Technology Strategist in the profit-sharing arrangement does not inherently lead to disciplinary action against the attorney, as long as the non-lawyer remains within the bounds of their role. The key aspect here is that the strategist primarily focuses on technological strategy and does not participate in legal decision-making, thereby not infringing upon the ethical boundaries set for legal practice. The profit-sharing arrangement does not violate ethical rules as long as it is structured properly and the non-lawyer's role is clearly delineated. It's common for law firms to incorporate non-lawyer roles that contribute to the firm's operational efficiency, such as technology strategists, provided that these roles do not cross into the practice of law. The other answers suggest that factors like profit-sharing arrangements or salaries might lead to discipline, but these are not relevant constraints as long as the non-lawyer's activities remain strictly non-legal in nature. Thus, the focus on the non-lawyer's lack of involvement in legal matters is central to understanding why the attorney would not be subject to disciplinary actions