<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<!-- generator="wordpress/2.0.7" -->
<rss version="2.0" 
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Legalethics.com</title>
	<link>http://www.legalethics.com</link>
	<description>Focusing on the ethical issues associated with the use of technology by legal professionals</description>
	<pubDate>Mon, 29 Apr 2013 01:07:04 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.0.7</generator>
	<language>en</language>
			<item>
		<title>Lawyer may participate with a for-profit Internet entity that provides users access to list of lawyers willing to provide services for fixed fees or lower rates</title>
		<link>http://www.legalethics.com/?p=393</link>
		<comments>http://www.legalethics.com/?p=393#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 11 Apr 2002 03:07:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Peterk</dc:creator>
		
		<category>Lawyer Referral Services</category>

		<category>Websites</category>

		<category>Advertising</category>

		<category>Washington</category>

		<category>Fee sharing</category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.legalethics.com/wordpress/2002/04/10/lawyer-may-participate-with-a-for-profit-internet-entity-that-provides-users-access-to-list-of-lawyers-willing-to-provide-services-for-fixed-fees-or-lower-rates/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[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 [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>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. <a href="http://mcle.mywsba.org/IO/print.aspx?ID=1187">Informal opinion 1947</a> (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.
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.legalethics.com/?feed=rss2&amp;p=393</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Lawyer may ethically make payments to an Internet services directory for advertising the lawyer&#8217;s services</title>
		<link>http://www.legalethics.com/?p=72</link>
		<comments>http://www.legalethics.com/?p=72#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 17 Jun 2001 04:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Peterk</dc:creator>
		
		<category>Maryland</category>

		<category>Websites</category>

		<category>Advertising</category>

		<category>Attorney-client privilege</category>

		<category>Conflicts</category>

		<category>Fee sharing</category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.legalethics.com/wordpress/?p=72</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[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) [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>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 <a href="http://www.msba.org/members/ethics.asp">not available online</a> without an account.
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.legalethics.com/?feed=rss2&amp;p=72</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Proposal by Washington lawyer to participate as owners of Internet company raises ethical concerns</title>
		<link>http://www.legalethics.com/?p=392</link>
		<comments>http://www.legalethics.com/?p=392#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 08 Feb 2001 03:02:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Peterk</dc:creator>
		
		<category>Confidentiality</category>

		<category>Websites</category>

		<category>Advertising</category>

		<category>Washington</category>

		<category>Fee sharing</category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.legalethics.com/wordpress/2001/02/07/proposal-by-washington-lawyer-to-participate-as-owners-of-internet-company-raises-ethical-concerns/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[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).

]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>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. <a href="http://mcle.mywsba.org/IO/print.aspx?ID=1170">Informal opinion 1930</a> (2000).
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.legalethics.com/?feed=rss2&amp;p=392</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Proposal to open National Internet Law Office does not comply with Washington advertising rules</title>
		<link>http://www.legalethics.com/?p=390</link>
		<comments>http://www.legalethics.com/?p=390#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 07 Apr 1999 02:57:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Peterk</dc:creator>
		
		<category>Confidentiality</category>

		<category>Advertising</category>

		<category>Washington</category>

		<category>Conflicts</category>

		<category>Fee sharing</category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.legalethics.com/wordpress/1999/04/06/proposal-to-open-national-internet-law-office-does-not-comply-with-washington-advertising-rules/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[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).

]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>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. <a href="http://mcle.mywsba.org/IO/print.aspx?ID=896">Informal opinion 1831</a> (1998).
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.legalethics.com/?feed=rss2&amp;p=390</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
