Can a lawyer run a pay-per-call prerecorded legal information line and co-own the venture with a non-lawyer?

Plain-English summary

A lawyer proposed a 900- or 976-number service charging callers $15 for a five-minute prerecorded message of general Illinois legal information, advertised in newspapers, with an invitation at the end to call the lawyer's voice mail for a no-charge consultation. The lawyer and a non-lawyer were the only two shareholders of an Illinois corporation that contracted with the phone company; the non-lawyer handled paperwork and contracts, had no client contact, and gave no advice but received salary and dividends equal to the lawyer's.

The opinion concluded that the committee could not say the paid prerecorded-information venture was, by itself, a violation. It distinguished prior Opinion No. 94-11 (live "legal counsel via your car phone"), reasoning that the prerecorded message is not a one-on-one discussion and the caller may disregard the information. Drawing on the First Amendment and the analogy to a lawyer selling a book or audio recording, it held that a prerecorded message offered for a price is not per se improper, though the advertisement must comply with Rules 7.1, 7.2, and 7.3, and any one-on-one interview that follows requires a conflicts analysis. The opinion cautioned that the activity has a high potential for abuse and that a message that is merely a preamble to an obvious solicitation could be an overreaching or deceptive practice under Rule 8.4.

On the non-lawyer shareholder, the opinion concluded that creating the recorded or written advertisement is not the unauthorized practice of law, so the non-lawyer may share in profits from the recording fees that Rule 7.2(b) permits. But it held that Rule 5.4(a) bars sharing legal fees with a non-lawyer and Rule 5.4(b) bars a law-practice partnership with a non-lawyer. Once a caller calls back and enters a professional relationship, all fees must flow to the lawyer's firm; practicing law in the name of a corporation partly owned by a non-lawyer would improperly aid the unauthorized practice of law under Rule 5.5(b).

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1998, before Illinois adopted the 2010 Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct. The ISBA Board of Governors affirmed the opinion in January 2010 as generally consistent with the 2010 Rules (referring to Rules 5.4, 7.1, 7.2, 7.3, and 8.4), while noting the specific standards referenced may differ from the 2010 Rules. Subsequent rule amendments or later opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance. Verify against current rules before relying on any specific rule or requirement mentioned here.

Common questions

Q: Can a lawyer charge callers for a prerecorded message of general legal information?

A: The opinion concluded it is not per se improper. It compared the recording to a lawyer selling a book or audio recording and found the committee could not say charging for general legal information violates the rules, so long as the related advertising complies with Rules 7.1, 7.2, and 7.3.

Q: Can the lawyer share the per-call fees with a non-lawyer?

A: Yes, for the recording portion. The opinion held that preparing the recording or written ad is not the practice of law, so under Rule 7.2(b) the non-lawyer may share in profits from the recording fees.

Q: Can the lawyer and non-lawyer split the legal fees once a caller becomes a client?

A: No. The opinion concluded that Rule 5.4(a) bars sharing legal fees with a non-lawyer, so once a caller enters a professional relationship all fees must flow to the lawyer's firm; a corporation partly owned by a non-lawyer that practices law would aid the unauthorized practice of law under Rule 5.5(b).

Q: Does the ending invitation to call the lawyer change the analysis?

A: The opinion noted that once the recording broaches solicitation, it must be analyzed under Rule 7.3, and any resulting one-on-one interview requires a proper conflicts check.

Background and rules framework

The opinion interpreted Illinois Rules 7.1, 7.2, and 7.3 (lawyer advertising and solicitation; Model Rules 7.1 to 7.3), Rule 8.4 (misconduct; Model Rule 8.4), and Rule 5.4(a) and (b) (sharing fees and forming partnerships with non-lawyers; Model Rule 5.4), and referenced Rule 5.5(b) on aiding the unauthorized practice of law. It applied prior ISBA Opinions 94-11, 96-04, and 96-10.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• Model Rule 7.1 to 7.3 (advertising and solicitation) / Illinois Rules 7.1, 7.2, 7.3
• Model Rule 5.4 (professional independence; fee sharing with non-lawyers) / Illinois Rule 5.4(a), (b)
• Model Rule 5.5 (unauthorized practice) / Illinois Rule 5.5(b)
• Model Rule 8.4 (misconduct) / Illinois Rule 8.4

Other opinions cited:

• ISBA Advisory Opinion No. 94-11: live "legal counsel via car phone" found improper
• ISBA Advisory Opinion No. 96-04: practicing law through a non-lawyer-owned entity
• ISBA Advisory Opinion No. 96-10: a law-firm web site analogized to a yellow-pages entry

See also

• ISBA Ethics Op. 97-05: For-Profit Lawyer Referral Service
• ISBA Ethics Op. 97-04: Referral Fees From Nonlawyer Professionals

Source

• Landing page: https://www.isba.org/ethics/opinions/9706