When may a legal services organization run a not-for-profit lawyer referral service, and may an attorney on its board take referrals from the service?

Plain-English summary

The Committee considered when a legal services organization may run a not-for-profit lawyer referral service, drawing on Arizona Opinion 81-4 (1981) and adopting its standards. Under those standards, the sponsoring organization must be organized on a not-for-profit basis with general activities and purposes consistent with helping the public locate counsel; it must not be initiated, promoted, or operated for the primary purpose of providing financial or other benefit to any lawyer or lawyers; and the referral service must operate in a manner consistent with the Code of Professional Responsibility.

On the second question, whether an attorney member of the corporation's board of directors may participate in the program, the Committee answered "Qualified yes." Following the Arizona opinion, it agreed that a lawyer may serve on a committee that directs and controls an approved lawyer referral service and accept referrals from the service, but that prospective clients should not be informed of the identity of the lawyer members of the governing board, because lawyers on that board might otherwise improve their own chances of gaining referrals. The Committee adopted these guidelines on the condition that an attorney-member has no control over the assignment of clients.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1984 under Kentucky's former Code of Professional Responsibility (in effect 1971 to 1990), before the Kentucky Bar Association's 1990 adoption of the Rules of Professional Conduct (SCR 3.130) and the substantial 2009 revisions to those rules. The opinion itself directs readers to the current advertising rules (SCR 3.130, Rules 7.01 to 7.50) and the Attorneys' Advertising Commission Regulations. 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 Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance.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 rule, deadline, or requirement mentioned here.

Common questions

Q: When is a not-for-profit lawyer referral service proper in Kentucky?

A: Under this opinion, when the sponsoring organization is organized on a not-for-profit basis to help the public find counsel, is not run primarily to benefit any lawyer or lawyers, and operates consistently with the Code of Professional Responsibility.

Q: Can a lawyer who sits on the referral service's board accept referrals from it?

A: Qualified yes. The opinion concluded a lawyer may serve on the governing board and take referrals so long as the lawyer has no control over how clients are assigned.

Q: Are prospective clients told which lawyers serve on the board?

A: No. The opinion adopted the view that prospective clients should not be informed of the lawyer board members' identities, because doing so might improve those lawyers' chances of gaining referrals.

Background and rules framework

The opinion applied the former Code's anti-solicitation and referral provisions, DR 2-103(B), (C), and (D) (recommendation of a lawyer's employment and approved referral services) and DR 2-104(A)(3). The modern analogs are Model Rule 7.2 (a lawyer may be recommended by a qualified, not-for-profit or bar-approved lawyer referral service) and Model Rule 7.3 (solicitation). The analysis turned on the not-for-profit, public-service character of the service and on insulating board lawyers from control over client assignment.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• DR 2-103(B); DR 2-103(C); DR 2-103(D)(3) and (4); DR 2-104(A)(3) (former Code)
• MR 7.2 (lawyer referral services); MR 7.3 (solicitation)

Other opinions cited:

• Arizona Op. 81-4 (1981): standards for approving a lawyer referral service and for board-member participation

See also

• KBA Ethics Op. E-344: Cooperative Advertising and For-Profit Referral
• KBA Ethics Op. E-385: Legal-Aid Referrals From Nonprofit Service Organizations
• KBA Ethics Op. E-329: Bar Justice Center and the Corporate Practice of Law

Source

• Landing page: https://kybar.org/For-Members/Rules-Ethics-Information/Ethics-Opinions
• Original PDF: https://kybar.org/Portals/0/Admin/Ethics%20Opinions/KBA_E-296.pdf

Original opinion text

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

KENTUCKY BAR ASSOCIATION
Ethics Opinion KBA E-296
Issued: November 1984

This opinion was decided under the Code of Professional Responsibility, which was in
effect from 1971 to 1990. Lawyers should consult the current version of the Rules of
Professional Conduct and Comments, SCR 3.130 (available at http://www.kybar.org),
especially Rules 7.01-7.50 and the Attorneys' Advertising Commission Regulations,
before relying on this opinion.

Question 1:

Under what circumstances may a Legal Services Organization run a not-for-profit
lawyer referral service?

Answer 1:

See discussion.

Question 2:

May an attorney member of the Board of Directors of the Corporation participate in
the program?

Answer 2:

Qualified yes.

References:

Arizona Op. 81-4 (1981); DR 2-103(s)(c)(D)(3)(4); DR 2-104(A)(3).
OPINION

The above questions were recently considered by the Committee on Rules of Professional
Conduct, State Bar of Arizona, in Arizona Opinion 81-4(1981). In that opinion the following
standards were recommended for consideration in the approval of a lawyer referral service [citing
DR 2-103(B)(C)(D)(3)(4) and DR 2-104(A)(3)]:
1.
The organization sponsoring the lawyer referral service is organized on a
not-for-profit basis and its general activities and purposes are consistent with the
function of providing members of the general public with assistance in locating
counsel.
2.
The organization is not initiated, promoted or operated for the primary purpose
of providing financial or other benefit to any lawyer or lawyers.
3.
The lawyer referral service will be operated in a manner consistent with the
Code of Professional Responsibility.
With regard to Question 2, the Arizona Committee made the following observations:
A lawyer may serve on a committee that directs and controls the operation of an
approved lawyer referral service and accept referrals from the service. Prospective clients

should not be informed of the identity of the lawyer members of the board because the
lawyers on the governing committee may improve their chances of gaining referrals.
We agree with and adopt the guidelines provided in this recent Arizona opinion, provided
that an attorney-member has no control over the assignment of clients.

Note to Reader
This ethics opinion has been formally adopted by the Board of Governors of the Kentucky
Bar Association under the provisions of Kentucky Supreme Court Rule 3.530 (or its predecessor
rule). The Rule provides that formal opinions are advisory only.