Can lawyers use websites to recruit class-action plaintiffs or bid on legal projects posted by clients, and what does D.C. require?
Apply this to your situation
This page answers the general question as of 2000. Ezel answers yours: whether it's allowed on your facts, under the current rules of professional conduct in your state, with citations.
Plain-English summary
Opinion 302 (adopted November 2000) addressed two internet practices: using websites to recruit plaintiffs for class-action lawsuits, and obtaining work through websites where clients post legal projects for lawyers to bid on. The Committee concluded both were permissible under the D.C. Rules. Because D.C. (unlike many states) has no special solicitation rules, all communications about a lawyer's services are governed by Rule 7.1's single touchstone: the communication may not be false or misleading, whether labeled advertising or solicitation.
For class-action websites, the opinion concluded the communication had to describe the lawsuit accurately and could not falsely suggest it was court-authorized (for example, by using "Notice") or make unsubstantiated comparative or "we can help you" claims. Where a lawyer paid a third party to host or post the information, Rule 7.1(b)(5) required disclosing the consideration paid to the intermediary and its effect on the fee, and the lawyer had to make her affiliation with the site clear. Under Rule 4.3, the lawyer could not imply she was disinterested, since she had a financial stake in the litigation. The opinion noted Rule 3.6 (trial publicity) and Rule 1.6 (confidentiality of unencrypted email, per Opinion 281) could also apply, and that important disclosures should be readily visible, not buried several clicks away.
For legal-bidding websites, the opinion largely agreed with the New York City Bar's Opinion 2000-1 but diverged where D.C.'s rules differ. Because D.C. permits paid for-profit intermediaries, lawyers could initiate communications and pay a fee to access bidding sites, subject to the Rule 7.1(b)(5) disclosure. It agreed, however, that a fee tied to the size of the lawyer's legal bills would be impermissible fee-sharing under Rule 5.4, that a service directing or regulating the lawyer's professional judgment would violate Rule 5.4(c), and that lawyers had to ensure the site adequately protected against confidentiality and conflict problems and run their own conflicts checks.
Currency note
The D.C. Bar flags this opinion with the note: "See how Opinion 302 has been substantively affected by the amendments to the D.C. Rules of Professional Conduct that became effective on February 1, 2007." The Rule 7.1 communications and intermediary provisions on which this opinion relied were revised in that amendment, which postdates this 2000 opinion. Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance, and verify against the current D.C. Rules of Professional Conduct before relying on any specific rule described here.
Common questions
Q: Could lawyers use websites to find class-action plaintiffs?
A: The opinion concluded yes, as long as the site was not false or misleading under Rule 7.1; for example, it had to describe the lawsuit accurately and not falsely suggest it was court-authorized.
Q: Did D.C. have special solicitation rules for these websites?
A: The opinion concluded no. D.C. has no separate solicitation rules; all communications about a lawyer's services are judged under Rule 7.1's bar on false or misleading statements, whether they are advertising or solicitation.
Q: Could a lawyer pay to access a legal-bidding website?
A: The opinion concluded yes. Because D.C. permits paid intermediaries, a lawyer could pay to access a bidding site, but had to disclose that payment and its effect on the fee under Rule 7.1(b)(5).
Q: When would a bidding-site fee be improper fee-sharing?
A: The opinion concluded a fee tied to the size of the lawyer's legal bills would be impermissible fee-sharing with a non-lawyer under Rule 5.4; a flat access fee paid by the lawyer, or a percentage paid by the client, did not raise that problem.
Background and rules framework
The opinion interpreted D.C. Rule 7.1 (communications about a lawyer's services; the false-or-misleading standard and the Rule 7.1(b)(5) intermediary-disclosure requirement), Rule 5.4 (professional independence; fee-sharing and the bar on a non-lawyer directing the lawyer's judgment), Rule 4.3 (dealing with unrepresented persons; not implying disinterest), Rule 3.6 (trial publicity), and Rule 1.6 (confidentiality of electronic communications). It built on prior D.C. Opinions 225, 249, 281, and 286, and engaged ABCNY Opinion 2000-1. As the Currency note records, the Rule 7.1 provisions were revised effective February 1, 2007.
Citations and references
Rules of Professional Conduct:
- D.C. RPC 7.1 / Model Rule 7.1 (communications; intermediary disclosure; revised effective Feb. 1, 2007)
- D.C. RPC 5.4 / Model Rule 5.4 (professional independence; fee-sharing)
- D.C. RPC 4.3 / Model Rule 4.3 (dealing with unrepresented persons)
- D.C. RPC 3.6, 1.6 / Model Rules 3.6, 1.6 (trial publicity; confidentiality)
Cases:
- Gulf Oil Co. v. Bernard, 452 U.S. 89 (1981) (limits on regulating attorney communications with potential class members)
Other opinions cited:
- D.C. Ethics Opinions 225, 249, 281, 286
- ABCNY Op. 2000-1 (2000); New York State Op. 709 (1998)
See also
- ABA Formal Op. 10-457: Lawyer Websites
- ABA Formal Op. 07-445: Contacting Putative Class Members
- DC Ethics Op. 342: Paid Internet Lawyer Referral Services
Source
- Landing page: https://www.dcbar.org/for-lawyers/legal-ethics/ethics-opinions-210-present/ethics-opinion-302
Get today's answer for your situation
You just read a 2000 opinion on this question. Ezel checks the current rules of professional conduct in your state and answers your specific situation, with citations.
Opens in Ezel Pro. Every answer cites the rules it relies on.