## Facts

- Rex Voegtlin, a certified financial planner, marketed living trusts through seminars and offered “free consultations” to attendees.
- After consultations, Voegtlin (sometimes with James Miller, a bank trust officer) gathered client data, discussed goals, and recommended specific estate-planning instruments, including living trusts.
- William D. Baker, an Iowa attorney, agreed to accept referrals from Voegtlin and Miller and over about two years received roughly 100 matters and about $40,000 in fees.
- Baker supplied Voegtlin with sample forms for use in seminar-related client interactions and advised Voegtlin regarding newsletter content about living trusts.
- Clients were typically referred to Baker only after Voegtlin and Miller had recommended a particular plan, and Baker generally drafted documents implementing the recommended plan.
- Baker did not counsel referred clients against the living trust arrangements Voegtlin recommended.
- Iowa ethics authorities issued formal opinions disapproving attorney participation in similar living-trust programs; Baker continued the relationship despite being concerned he was the only attorney still doing so.
- The Committee initiated discipline after an investigation into whether Voegtlin was practicing law without a license; the Grievance Commission found violations and recommended a public reprimand.

## Issues

1. Whether a nonlawyer’s individualized recommendations about the need for a living trust and related estate-planning instruments constitute the unauthorized practice of law.
2. Whether Baker aided unauthorized practice of law by providing forms and support and by accepting referrals structured around nonlawyer legal counseling.
3. Whether Baker impermissibly allowed nonlawyers to direct or regulate his professional judgment and accepted improper referrals, creating conflicts of interest.
4. What sanction was appropriate.

## Decision

- The court held that Voegtlin’s individualized advice and recommendations regarding living trusts and estate-planning instruments constituted the unauthorized practice of law.
- The court held that Baker aided and abetted that unauthorized practice by furnishing forms and guidance and by participating in a referral pipeline in which nonlawyers made core legal judgments.
- The court found Baker permitted nonlawyers to influence or direct his professional judgment and accepted improper referrals that compromised independent legal advice.
- The court imposed a public reprimand, adopting the Grievance Commission’s recommendation.

## Legal Principles

- A nonlawyer engages in the unauthorized practice of law when the nonlawyer exercises professional legal judgment by advising others about the need for a living trust or recommending particular estate-planning instruments.
- A lawyer may not assist or enable unauthorized practice of law by providing tools, guidance, or participation that facilitates nonlawyer legal counseling.
- A lawyer must maintain independent professional judgment and may not allow a nonlawyer to direct or regulate the lawyer’s legal services.
- Referral arrangements that economically pressure a lawyer to implement nonlawyer-selected legal plans can create conflicts of interest and violate professional-responsibility rules.
- A lawyer’s role is not limited to acting as a scrivener when the engagement reasonably requires independent legal evaluation of the client’s objectives and options.

## Conclusion

The Iowa Supreme Court concluded that a financial planner’s tailored living-trust recommendations were unauthorized law practice and that an attorney who supported and implemented those recommendations through a structured referral arrangement violated duties of independence and non-assistance of unauthorized practice; the court ordered a public reprimand.


Comm. on Pro. Ethics & Conduct of the Iowa State Bar Ass’n v. Baker, 492 N.W.2d 695 (Iowa 1992)