Washington opinion 2106 (2006) addresses several ethical concerns raised by a lawyer’s propsed participation in an online for-profit referral service.
Lawyers may not use the services of a website that forwards inquiries from potential clients to subscribing lawyers. Opinion 799 (September 29, 2006). While websites may be used for advertising purposes, they can not, in exchange for a fee, carry out activities that in a non-web setting would constitute prohibited solicitation or referral
An online service that matches prospective clients with potential lawyers based on the appropriate geographic and practice areas, makes representations about the qualifications of its member lawyers, and provides a monetary satisfaction guarantee, is a “lawyer referral service” within the meaning of ER 7.2(b). Unless the service is a non-profit service or is approved by an appropriate regulatory authority, Arizona attorneys may not pay a fee to participate. See Arizona Opinion 06-06 (September 2006).
Texas lawyers may participate in a privately sponsored internet service that obtains information over the internet from potential clients about their legal problems and forwards the information to lawyers who have paid to participate in the internet service. Opinion 573 (July 2006).
New Jersey lawyers must ensure that Internet listings or advertisements on third party websites contain a prominently and unmistakably displayed disclaimer. Opinion 36 (182 NJLJ 1206, 15 NJL 48, December 26, 2005). The disclaimer must be at least equal to the largest and most prominent font and type on the site, declaring that “all attorney listings are a paid attorney advertisement, and do not in any way constitute a referral or endorsement by an approved or authorized lawyer referral service.”
Iowa lawyers may not link to and participate in an online referral service that provides consumers with a way to find attorneys by specialty and locale and publishes a wealth of consumer legal content and attorney resources.Iowa Opinion 00-07 (December 5, 2000).
Texas lawyers may not pay a fee to be listed on a for-profit Internet site that obtains information from potential clients about their legal problems and forwards that information to one or more lawyers who paid for listings. Such an Internet matching service is a prohibited lawyer referral service and not permissible advertising. Texas State Bar Professional Ethics Comm., Op. 561 (August 2005)
Texas lawyers may not pay a fee to be listed on a privately sponsored internet site which obtains information over the internet from potential clients about their legal problems and forwards the information to one or more lawyers who have paid to be listed on the internet site. Opinion 561 (August 2005).
A lawyer may not pay to participate in the for-profit client/attorney internet matching service because the Service substantially functions as, and holds itself out as, a referral service and because the information presented by the Service on behalf of participating lawyers is materially misleading. See Arizona Opinion #05-08 (July 2005).
North Carolina lawyers may participate in an on-line service that is similar to both a lawyer referral service and a legal directory provided there is no fee sharing with the service and all communications about the lawyer and the service are truthful. 2004 Formal Ethics Opinion 1 (April 23, 2004).
Iowa lawyers may be listed on a third party website as a lawyer who provides residential real estate services for “for sale by owner” buyers and sellers. Iowa Opinion This type of advertising program is permitted under DR 2-101(B)(5). Iowa Opinion 04-02. (September 11, 2003). However, the inclusion of the lawyer’s name on the company’s website would appear to be a “designation” of real estate law as an area of practice. Prior to such listing hte lawyer must file a certification to “designate” real estate law with the Commission or on Continuing Legal Education pursuant to DR 2-105(B) and (C) of the Iowa Code of Professional Responsibility.
A Washington lawyer is not prohibited from entering into an agreement, such as that required by the for profit Internet entity that operates a Web site providing users of the site access to lawyers who are willing to provide legal services for fixed fees or lower hourly rates. Informal opinion 1947 (2001) Such an agreement does not entail fee sharing with a nonlawyer, and/or indirect payment of a referral fee to a for profit referral service.
Washington lawyers may use out-of-state Internet lawyer referral services that operate in a similar fashion to Martindale-Hubbell legal directory. Informal opinion 1955 (2001) Lawyers are responsible for ensuring that all communications made in a Web based directory concerning the lawyer and the lawyer’s services are truthful and are otherwise in compliance with the Rules of Profesional Conduct.
South Carolina lawyers may participate in online matching service but should review all postings and the operation of the service for compliance with the South Carolina Rules of Professional Conduct. Ethics Advisory Opinion 00-10. Lawyers may not pay the servoce any fees at any time for participating.
In South Carolina Bar Ethics Advisory Opinion 01-03, the bar’s ethics panel opined that a lawyer may ethically make payments to an Internet service for advertising the lawyer’s services based either on a set monthly or yearly fee or based on the number of hits or referrals from the service to the lawyer. Lawyers could not ethically pay the service any portion of the fees received from clients obtained through the service.
(112)
(1)
(15)
(20)
(58)
(4)
(2)
(6)
(16)
(51)
(90)
(14)
(8)
(18)
(11)
(8)
(19)
(69)
(40)
(64)
(2)
(3)
(3)
(4)
(1)
(3)
(36)
(3)
(39)
(4)
(4)
(3)
(24)
(12)
(63)
(6)
(12)
(15)
(12)
(3)
(22)
(15)
(2)
(107)
(1)
(2)
