Can a lawyer agree to prepare wills for a client and the client's coworkers, contact those coworkers, and offer a volume discount on the fees?

Plain-English summary

A member was contacted by a friend who was an insurance agent. The friend, along with about twenty-five other agents from his company, had recently seen the value of having a will, and the friend asked whether the lawyer could prepare a will for him and each of the other agents, and whether a reduced fee could be offered given the volume. So far as the lawyer knew, the friend was the only agent he was acquainted with. The inquiry was whether the lawyer could ethically contact the insurance company or the agents, whether he could do the work at the company's expense, and whether the usual fees could be reduced for volume.

The committee unanimously concluded the lawyer could ethically advise the agent who contacted him that he was willing to prepare the wills, but it would be improper to contact the insurance company or the other agents directly. A direct attorney-client relationship had to be established with each agent, and each will prepared only after determining the nature of that individual's problems, since it could not be assumed that one form of will would suit every case. The committee saw no objection to the fees being paid by the company on behalf of its agents or by the individual testator. A majority believed it would not be improper to indicate a willingness to do the work for a conservative fee consistent with Canon 12, but, with one exception, the committee viewed a blanket promise to do all the work at a reduced rate or specific charge as improper, because it would tend to stimulate professional employment and predetermine the fee before each testator's problems were examined.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1965, before The Florida Bar's adoption of the 2006 revisions to the Rules of Professional Conduct, and before the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Bates v. State Bar of Arizona, 433 U.S. 350 (1977), which changed the constitutional landscape for lawyer advertising and solicitation. The opinion applied former Canons 12, 27, and 35 of the Canons of Professional Ethics; fees are now governed by Rule 4-1.5 and direct solicitation by Rule 4-7.18 of the Rules Regulating The Florida Bar (Model Rules 1.5 and 7.3). The bar's note points to current Rule 4-1.5. Subsequent rule amendments or later opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance. Verify against the current rules before relying on any specific requirement mentioned here.

Common questions

Q: Can a lawyer agree to prepare wills for a client's coworkers?

A: Yes, but only by responding to the coworker who contacted him. The committee said the lawyer could advise that contact of his willingness, while a direct attorney-client relationship had to be formed with each testator and each will prepared after examining that person's situation.

Q: Can the lawyer contact the company or the other employees directly?

A: No. The committee said it would be improper to contact directly either the insurance company or the other agents involved.

Q: Can the lawyer offer a volume discount?

A: The committee said a willingness to work for a conservative fee consistent with Canon 12 was acceptable, but a blanket promise to do all the work at a reduced rate or specific charge was improper, as it would tend to stimulate employment and predetermine the fee.

Background and rules framework

The opinion applied former Canons 12 (fees), 27 (advertising and solicitation), and 35 (intermediaries) of the Canons of Professional Ethics. Fees are now governed by Rule 4-1.5 and direct, in-person or targeted solicitation by Rule 4-7.18 of the Rules Regulating The Florida Bar (Model Rules 1.5 and 7.3). The committee tied its fee analysis to Canon 12 and its no-solicitation analysis to the concern that a blanket discount would stimulate professional employment.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• Canon 12 [Canons of Professional Ethics; fixing the amount of the fee; see current Rule 4-1.5]
• Canon 27, Canon 35 [Canons of Professional Ethics; advertising, solicitation, and intermediaries]

See also

• FL Bar Ethics Op. 66-29: Fixed Monthly Fee for Mortgage-Lender Closings
• FL Bar Ethics Op. 65-34: Billing the Other Side's Client Without an Agreement

Source

• Landing page: https://www.floridabar.org/etopinions/etopinion-65-20/
• Original PDF: https://www-media.floridabar.org/uploads/2017/04/FL-Bar-Ethics-Op-65-20-1.pdf

Original opinion text

Reproduced from the official source for research purposes. The linked source is authoritative.

FLORIDA BAR ETHICS OPINION
OPINION 65-20
April 29, 1965
Advisory ethics opinions are not binding.
A lawyer may respond affirmatively to a prospective client who inquires as to the lawyer's willingness to prepare wills for the client and several fellow employees of the client. The lawyer may not, however, initiate communications with the other prospective clients. He may prepare the wills only after establishing an attorney-client relationship with each testator and considering the testator's particular problems and circumstances.
Canons: 12, 27, 35 [See current 4-1.5]
Chairman Smith stated the opinion of the committee:
A member of The Florida Bar states he was recently contacted by a friend who is an insurance agent. This friend, and approximately twenty-five other agents from his company, have recently had occasion to see the value of having a will. The friend has inquired whether the lawyer is in a position to prepare a will for him and for each of the other agents and whether a reduction in fee or fees can be provided for because of the volume of the work contemplated. So far as the lawyer knows, the friend is the only one of the agents with whom the lawyer is presently acquainted. The inquiry, in essence, is whether he can ethically contact either the insurance company involved or the several agents involved, whether he can do the work at the expense of the insurance company, and whether the fees usually charged for such work can be reduced in view of the volume of work contemplated.
It is the unanimous view of this Committee that the lawyer can ethically advise the agent who initially contacted him that he is willing to prepare the wills. The Committee, however, believes it would be improper to contact directly either the insurance company or the other agents involved. Further, a direct attorney-client relationship must be established with each of the agents, and the wills of each should only be prepared after determination of the nature of the individual's problems. It cannot be assumed that a particular form of will will be satisfactory in every case.
The Committee sees no objection to the fees for this work being paid either by the insurance company, on behalf of its agents, or by the individual testator. A majority of the Committee further believes that it would not be improper to indicate a willingness to do the work for a conservative fee so long as the same is consistent with the considerations prescribed by Canon 12 of the Canons of Professional Ethics [See current Rule 4-1.5]. With one exception, however, it is the view of the Committee that it would be improper to make a blanket promise that all work should be done at a reduced work rate or for a specific charge. This would appear to tend to stimulate professional employment and to predetermine the fee to be charged before the problems of each of the testators have been examined.