This article is provided for general educational and informational purposes only. It is not legal, financial, or tax advice and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Laws, procedures, and agency rules can differ by jurisdiction and may change over time. A qualified professional can address specific facts and current requirements. The author and publisher are not responsible for actions taken based on this information.
Key Facts
- Federal level: The ABA Commission on Ethics 20/20 reviewed the Model Rules and the U.S. lawyer-regulation system in the context of technology and global legal practice developments.
- State level: The ABA Model Rules serve as models for the ethics rules of most jurisdictions, so jurisdictions often adopt or modify the Model Rules rather than using them word-for-word.
- National overview: The ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct were adopted by the ABA House of Delegates in 1983 and function as model guidance for state lawyer ethics rules.
- National overview: On August 6, 2012, the ABA House of Delegates approved resolutions that included 105C (Outsourcing).
- National overview: Resolution 105C (Outsourcing) amended the comments to Model Rule 1.1 to address outsourcing-related guidance tied to informed consent and a reasonable belief about competent and ethical representation.
- National overview: Resolution 105C amended the comments to Model Rule 5.3 to address the use of nonlawyers outside the firm and emphasized reasonable efforts compatible with professional obligations, particularly confidentiality.
- National overview: Resolution 105C connected outsourcing discussion to Model Rule 5.5’s unauthorized-practice framework, including the idea of not practicing law in violation of a jurisdiction’s regulation or assisting another to do so.
Last reviewed: May 2026. Legal rules, forms, deadlines, and procedures can change by jurisdiction, agency, and court system.
- Why the 2012AM105c archive item matters
- What Resolution 105C (Outsourcing) did in the 2012 record
- Competence how Resolution 105C links outsourcing to Model Rule 1.1
- Confidentiality and nonlawyer assistance in the 2012 Rule 5.3 comment amendments
- Unauthorized practice boundaries and Model Rule 5.5
- A quick comparison between the 2012 archive guidance and the Model Rules text verified here
- How Model Rules guidance fits into state lawyer ethics systems
- Staying grounded in archive history
- Sources
Why the 2012AM105c archive item matters
The archive item tagged as 2012AM105c centers on an ABA governance action called Resolution 105C (Outsourcing). In historical context, the resolution tied “outsourcing” to ethical topics that show up across multiple parts of the ABA Model Rules—especially competence and confidentiality—rather than treating outsourcing as a single, stand-alone concept.
What Resolution 105C (Outsourcing) did in the 2012 record
The ABA Commission on Ethics 20/20 described its work as a review of the ABA Model Rules and the U.S. system of lawyer regulation in the context of technology and global legal practice developments. That same ABA page reports that, on August 6, 2012, the ABA’s policy-making House of Delegates voted to approve resolutions that included 105C (Outsourcing).
Resolution 105C is described as amending the comments to Model Rules 1.1, 5.3, and 5.5 to provide guidance on the ethical implications of retaining lawyers and nonlawyers outside a firm to work on client matters, which the resolution characterizes as outsourcing. The historical archive record for those amendments appears in the Resolution 105C ADOPTED amendments text.
Competence how Resolution 105C links outsourcing to Model Rule 1.1
Resolution 105C’s comment amendments tied outsourcing to the responsibilities surrounding competent and ethical representation. In the 2012 archive text, the comment language to Model Rule 1.1 addresses situations where a lawyer retains or contracts with other lawyers outside the lawyer’s own firm, stating that the lawyer should ordinarily obtain informed consent from the client and must reasonably believe the outside lawyers’ services will contribute to competent and ethical representation.
In addition to the outsourcing-specific comment guidance, the Model Rule 1.1 page text used as context in this run states that competent representation requires legal knowledge, skill, thoroughness, and preparation reasonably necessary for the representation in the Rule 1.1: Competence.
The key takeaway for readers is that the 2012 archive record frames outsourcing through the competence lens: the lawyer’s ethical obligations do not stop at the firm boundary.
Confidentiality and nonlawyer assistance in the 2012 Rule 5.3 comment amendments
Resolution 105C also amended the comments to Model Rule 5.3 in the 2012 archive record. The comment language included in the resolution discusses using nonlawyers outside the firm and describes that, when using such services, the lawyer must make reasonable efforts to ensure the services are provided in a manner compatible with the lawyer’s professional obligations, particularly regarding confidentiality.
This archive-focused outsourcing message matters because it highlights a common reader confusion: outsourcing discussions often focus on who performs work, but the resolution’s comment language treats confidentiality and compatibility with professional obligations as central to the ethical analysis.
Note on verification: this article uses the Resolution 105C ADOPTED record for the specific outsourcing-related Rule 5.3 comment wording, and it does not claim that the current Rule 5.3 comment text matches the 2012 wording.
Unauthorized practice boundaries and Model Rule 5.5
Resolution 105C connects outsourcing to the Model Rules set that includes Model Rule 5.5 (Unauthorized Practice of Law; Multijurisdictional Practice of Law). In this run, the Rule 5.5: Unauthorized Practice of Law; Multijurisdictional Practice of Law includes the following framework: (a) A lawyer shall not practice law in a jurisdiction in violation of the regulation of the legal profession in that jurisdiction, or assist another in doing so.
The archive connection for readers is conceptual. By pointing outsourcing back toward Rule 5.5’s unauthorized-practice boundaries, Resolution 105C frames outsourcing as an area where jurisdictional lines can matter in ethical risk analysis.
A quick comparison between the 2012 archive guidance and the Model Rules text verified here
| Topic area | 2012 archive record in Resolution 105C (comments) | Model Rule text verified in this run | Reader takeaway tied to the sources |
|---|---|---|---|
| Outsourcing competence (Model Rule 1.1) | Advises informed consent for outsourcing to outside lawyers and a reasonable belief that outside services will support competent and ethical representation | Model Rule 1.1 competence definition requires legal knowledge, skill, thoroughness, and preparation reasonably necessary | The 2012 archive record ties outsourcing to competence and client-consent concepts through Rule 1.1 comment amendments |
| Outsourcing confidentiality with nonlawyers (Model Rule 5.3) | Requires reasonable efforts to ensure outside nonlawyer services remain compatible with professional obligations, particularly confidentiality | Current Rule 5.3 comments were not verified in this run | Resolution 105C supplies the 2012 Rule 5.3 outsourcing-language for readers; this article avoids claiming current comment continuity |
| Outsourcing and jurisdictional boundaries (Model Rule 5.5) | Links outsourcing ethics to the broader Model Rules set including Rule 5.5 | Rule 5.5(a) framework prohibits practicing law in violation of a jurisdiction’s regulation or assisting another to do so | Outsourcing questions can intersect with unauthorized-practice boundaries when work crosses jurisdictional lines |
How Model Rules guidance fits into state lawyer ethics systems
The ABA Model Rules are described on the Model Rules of Professional Conduct page as adopted by the ABA House of Delegates in 1983 and serving as models for the ethics rules of most jurisdictions. That model role helps explain why the 2012 archive record reads like guidance across multiple Model Rules: jurisdictions often use the Model Rules as a baseline for their own adopted ethics frameworks.
Staying grounded in archive history
Resolution 105C is a 2012 ABA governance action that amends comments to Model Rules 1.1, 5.3, and 5.5 in the historical record. The archive focus helps modern readers interpret the item as a snapshot of how the ABA’s policy-making process addressed outsourcing ethics at the time, while the live Model Rule pages for Rule 1.1 and Rule 5.5 can change as ABA updates the Model Rules.
A related archive example on TheFirstFile is another ABA House of Delegates resolution item, which helps illustrate how governance resolutions can be documented and later referenced.
