Legalethics.com

Washington lawyers may not participate in a proposed online for-profit referral service

Peterk — Sun, 07 Jan 2007 03:11:52 +0000

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

Peterk — Sun, 12 Nov 2006 22:04:47 +0000

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

Arizona lawyers may not participate in unauthorized Internet referral service

Peterk — Tue, 17 Oct 2006 04:00:00 +0000

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 lawyer may pay a fee to participate in an internet client-lawyer connection service

Peterk — Mon, 11 Sep 2006 03:39:22 +0000

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).

Disclaimers required for listings on Internet advertising sites

Peterk — Fri, 17 Mar 2006 20:58:51 +0000

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.”

1e7a

Iowa lawyers may not link to and participate in an online referral service

Peterk — Wed, 11 Jan 2006 01:34:32 +0000

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).

Internet matching service is a prohibited lawyer referral service and impermissible advertising

Peterk — Tue, 15 Nov 2005 04:00:00 +0000

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

Peterk — Fri, 07 Oct 2005 03:41:18 +0000

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).

Lawyers may not pay to participate in the for-profit client/attorney Internet matching service

Peterk — Wed, 07 Sep 2005 04:00:00 +0000

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 particiapte in Internet matching services

Peterk — Tue, 10 Aug 2004 22:55:17 +0000

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).