Ethics rules require lawyers to provide representation that is zealous and competent, not shoddy. But how many clients can really tell the difference?

Not as many as you may think, say officials at HALT -- An Organization of Americans for Legal Reform, a Washington, D.C.-based group that has long challenged conventional lawyer roles and practices. The group is pushing for rules that would require lawyers to provide clients with a written explanation of their rights when dealing with a lawyer.

The 20-year-old group has drafted a two-page Legal Consumer Bill of Rights, which tells clients they're entitled to monthly case-status reports, prompt replies to phone calls, reasonable fees and other hallmarks of good practice.

Lower-income clients especially need this information, says James Turner, HALT executive director. "If you mention to most people that there is a disciplinary board, they don't even know that," he says.

States Lead the Way

Several states had been trying out the concept even before HALT's efforts. Last year, Illinois passed a law requiring matrimonial lawyers to provide client-rights information in divorce cases. And this year, New York began requiring lawyers to post a 10-point Statement of Client Rights in their offices. It was that effort that prompted HALT to promote the idea nationally.

Turner has since contacted the American Legislative Exchange Council, a national organization of state legislators. He hopes to introduce the idea in six key jurisdictions this year: Illinois, California, Texas, Florida, Michigan and the District of Columbia.

But the proposal raises questions, too: What exactly are a client's "rights"? Do lawyers and consumer advocates agree on them? Would creating a new statement of client rights muddle or undermine disciplinary rules already in place?

Gary Munneke, chair of the ABA Law Practice Management Section, is skeptical of making a bill of rights mandatory. "I don't object to informing the public," says Munneke, a law professor at Pace University in White Plains, N.Y. But, he adds, "Legislation isn't the only way."

Much of the HALT bill of rights amounts to an abbreviated, layperson's version of the ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct.

But lawyers quibble about the bill's wording. Already HALT has nixed a requirement that calls be returned within 24 hours. Lawyers complained that such a deadline may not always be possible. Now HALT states that calls should be returned "promptly."

Munneke also notes that as drafted, the document tells clients they have a right to file a disciplinary complaint if they are "not satisfied with how [the] matter is being handled." That is misleading, he says, since disciplinary boards won't act without evidence of unethical behavior.

Another provision accords with the Model Rules that lawyers may charge only a reasonable fee. But Munneke worries the wording of the provision may mistakenly lead clients to believe that fee agreements are unimportant, and that they may be disputed if the client later thinks the figure unreasonable.

Turner counters that clients need to know they have a right to seek discipline or to challenge fees; the document doesn't guarantee them success.

One lawyers group that is already interested in the bill of rights is the Consortium of Legal Services Providers in Washington, D.C. The consortium, an umbrella group of 30 D.C. legal aid groups, plans to discuss the idea when it meets in November.

Perhaps the biggest sticking point will be whether states should require lawyers to hand out the document. "The problem is that you could create another type of low-level disciplinary violation" for lawyers who fail to observe one of the client rights, Munneke says.

But Turner says HALT isn't trying to create a new set of disciplinary rules; it's trying to inform clients of rights they already have.

"Having ethical standards is something [a lawyer] should be proud of, and they should be accessible to the people you're serving," he says. "They shouldn't be hidden under a box."