Can a lawyer keep accepting clients an insurance agent refers to him on a recurring basis if there is no payment between them?

Plain-English summary

A lawyer reported that an insurance agent had suggested to several of the agent's clients that they might need estate planning, key-man insurance, or buy-sell agreements, and had recommended that they contact the lawyer's firm to analyze their estates and prepare any needed documents. Although the agent began referring prospective clients without the lawyer's knowledge, it appeared the agent would continue to send more. The lawyer asked whether he could accept these referrals on a recurring basis, with no financial arrangement between the agent and the lawyer suggested.

The committee distinguished Florida Opinion 64-70, which had advised against acceptance of employment in somewhat similar circumstances, noting that there the attorney had been employed in the first instance by the insurance agent. Assuming no business or financial relationship between the agent and the lawyer, a majority found no impropriety in accepting the referrals, provided their volume was not so great as to raise suspicion of an unethical arrangement. The committee described that test as necessarily somewhat subjective and said any doubt should be resolved against continuation of such employment. Three members dissented and would have reaffirmed the advice in paragraph 4 of Opinion 64-70.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1972, before The Florida Bar's adoption of the 2006 revisions to the Rules of Professional Conduct. It applied the former Code of Professional Responsibility, which has since been replaced. Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance. Verify against current Rule 4-7.18 before relying on any specific requirement mentioned here.

Common questions

Q: Could a lawyer accept clients an insurance agent kept sending him?

A: Under this opinion, yes, if there was no financial arrangement between the agent and the lawyer and the volume of referrals was not so great as to raise suspicion of an unethical arrangement.

Q: What was the line the committee drew?

A: The opinion turned on the absence of any business or financial relationship and on referral volume. It called the volume test subjective and said any doubt should be resolved against continuing the employment.

Q: How did this differ from the earlier opinion that disapproved a similar arrangement?

A: The committee distinguished Florida Opinion 64-70 on the ground that, there, the attorney had been employed in the first instance by the insurance agent, unlike the recurring unpaid referrals described here.

Background and rules framework

The opinion addressed accepting recurring client referrals from a non-lawyer where no fee passed between them, and the concern that a steady channel of business could amount to an improper feeding of legal employment. In current Florida practice the recommendation and referral of professional employment is governed by Rule 4-7.18; the Model Rule analogues are Rules 7.2 and 7.3.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• CPR (Code of Professional Responsibility) generally; the bar's current header references Rule 4-7.18

Other opinions cited:

• Florida Opinion 64-70

See also

• FL Bar Ethics Op. 72-31: A County Bar Referral Service and Legal Aid Screening
• FL Bar Ethics Op. 73-2: A Referral After a Conflict
• FL Bar Ethics Op. 02-8: Referral Fees and Ancillary Business

Source

• Landing page: https://www.floridabar.org/etopinions/etopinion-72-6/
• Original PDF: https://www-media.floridabar.org/uploads/2017/04/FL-Bar-Ethics-Op-72-6-2.pdf

Original opinion text

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

FLORIDA BAR ETHICS OPINION
OPINION 72-6
March 27, 1972
Advisory ethics opinions are not binding.
It is not improper for an attorney to accept clients from an insurance agent on a recurring basis if there is no financial arrangement between the agent and the attorney.
Opinion: 64-70
RPC: [See current 4-7.18]
Chairman Clarkson stated the opinion of the committee:
A Florida Lawyer states his inquiry in the following manner:
An insurance agent has recommended to several of his clients that there is a possibility that they need estate planning, key-man insurance, buy-sell agreements, etc. He consequently has recommended that his clients contact this firm, the writer in particular, to analyze their estates, make recommendations, and if necessary to draw the necessary documents.
While the agent originally was recommending such prospective clients without my knowledge, it now appears that he will continue to send me more and more prospective clients.
The question submitted is whether the lawyer may accept referral of clients from the insurance agent on a recurring basis. No financial arrangement between the agent and attorney is suggested.
In Florida Opinion 64-70 we advised against acceptance of employment under somewhat similar circumstances because of the appearance of a channeling of legal employment. One material difference was that there the attorney was employed in the first instance by the insurance agent.
Assuming there is no business or financial relationship between the insurance agent and the lawyer, a majority of the committee finds no impropriety in the acceptance of referrals provided their volume is not so great as to raise suspicion of an unethical arrangement. This test is necessarily somewhat subjective, and any doubt should be resolved against continuation of such employment.
Three members of the Committee dissent and would reaffirm the advice given in paragraph 4 of opinion 64-70, which they find applicable to this inquiry.