|
IT IS NOT ETHICAL FOR AN ATTORNEY FOR A JUDGMENT CREDITOR TO DEMAND FROM
AN UNREPRESENTED JUDGMENT DEBTOR WHOSE WAGES THE JUDGMENT CREDITOR HAS
GARNISHEED A SUM IN EXCESS OF THE AMOUNT THE JUDGMENT CREDITOR CAN TAKE
IN THE GARNISHMENT PROCESS, IN EXCHANGE FOR AN IMMEDIATE RELEASE OF THE
GARNISHMENT ORDER.
CODE PROVISIONS INTERPRETED:
DR 7-104(A):
"During the course of his representation of a client a lawyer shall
not:
(2) Give advice to a person who is not represented
by a lawyer, other than the advice to secure counsel, if the interests
of such person are or have a reasonable possibility of being in conflict
with the interests of his client."
DR 7-102(A): "In his representation of a client, a lawyer shall not:
(2) Knowingly advance a claim or defense that is
unwarranted under existing law, except that he may advance such claim
or defense if it can be supported by good faith argument for an extension,
modification, or reversal of existing law."
The inquirer requests an opinion as to whether it is ethical for an attorney
for a judgment creditor to demand from an unrepresented judgment debtor
whose wages the judgment creditor has garnisheed a sum in excess of the
amount the judgment creditor can take in the garnishment process in exchange
for an immediate release of the garnishment order.
While it is not improper for an attorney to communicate with an unrepresented
debtor who does not desire counsel, the question assumes that the debtor
is unaware of the statutory exemptions which may be claimed. In that context,
the cited provisions of the Code clearly prohibit the attorney from agreeing
with the debtor to release the garnishment in return for payment of an
amount of wages in excess of that which could be obtained if the exemptions
were applied.
73-8
|
