10
Apr
2002
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.
Comments : No Comments »
Categories : Lawyer Referral Services, Websites, Advertising, Washington, Fee sharing
16
Jun
2001
In Md. State Bar Assn. Committee on Ethics Opinion 01-03 (May 16, 2001), the committee opined that a proposed Internet business that would bring lawyers together with potential clients and which would share in the resulting fees, was not ethically permissible on the grounds that it would (a) involve prohibited fee sharing with nonlawyers, (b) pose risk of conflicts, and (c) potentially endanger prospective clients; attorney-client privilege. Maryland ethics opinions are not available online without an account.
Comments : No Comments »
Categories : Maryland, Websites, Advertising, Attorney-client privilege, Conflicts, Fee sharing
7
Feb
2001
Proposal by a Washington lawyer participate as owners in a company, in which other owners are presumably not lawyers, to market the firm’s legal services through a Web site raises fee sharing and otehr ethical concerns. Informal opinion 1930 (2000).
Comments : No Comments »
Categories : Confidentiality, Websites, Advertising, Washington, Fee sharing
6
Apr
1999
Proposal to open National Internet Law Office does not comply with Washington state advertising rules relating to trade names and raises conflicts, fee splitting, and confidentiality concerns. Informal opinion 1831 (1998).
Comments : No Comments »
Categories : Confidentiality, Advertising, Washington, Conflicts, Fee sharing
