In Kentucky, may a lawyer take part in cooperative (group-paid) advertising, and may a lawyer participate in a for-profit lawyer referral service?

Plain-English summary

The Committee was asked whether a Kentucky lawyer may participate in "cooperative" advertising and in a for-profit lawyer referral service. It gave a "qualified Yes" to the first and a "No" to the second.

On cooperative advertising, the opinion treated the question as a moving target, since the term has no certain meaning. If "cooperative advertising" means only advertising paid for by a group of lawyers, the answer is a qualified "Yes," because it is permissible to pay for advertising under Rule 7.2. The opinion cautioned that the Advertising Commission or other enforcement body may want one or more participating lawyers to put their names on the ads, that all lawyers will presumably bear responsibility for the ads' content, and that the Supreme Court has not approved trade names, while many cooperative-advertising plans appear to be efforts to operate under a trade name. The Committee said this abstract question is best directed to the court-appointed Advertising Commission.

On the second question, the opinion concluded that participation in a for-profit lawyer referral service must be answered "No" in light of the language of Rule 7.2(b), while noting that the Committee does not answer constitutional questions. It added that the Committee does not review, screen, approve, certify, or provide legal services to operators or participants in advertising and referral plans; lawyers must use their own judgment and participate at their own risk.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1991, before the substantial 2009 revisions to Kentucky's Rules of Professional Conduct (SCR 3.130); the Kentucky Bar Association notes the advertising rules were substantially revised and Rule 7.2 was renumbered as Rule 7.20, and that KBA E-429 also addresses the issues raised here. 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 Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance.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: Can a group of lawyers share the cost of one advertisement?

A: Yes, in qualified form. The opinion concluded that if "cooperative advertising" means advertising paid for by a group of lawyers, it is permissible because lawyers may pay for advertising under Rule 7.2, subject to naming and content-responsibility concerns.

Q: Can a Kentucky lawyer join a for-profit lawyer referral service?

A: No. The opinion concluded that participation in a for-profit referral service must be answered "No" under the language of Rule 7.2(b).

Q: Are trade names a concern in cooperative advertising?

A: Yes. The opinion noted the Supreme Court has not approved trade names and that many cooperative-advertising plans appear to be efforts to operate under a trade name.

Background and rules framework

The opinion interprets KRPC 7.2 (advertising; Model Rule 7.2), including 7.2(b)'s limits on giving value for recommending the lawyer's services, and references the role of the court-appointed Advertising Commission. The Kentucky Bar Association notes Rule 7.2 was renumbered as Rule 7.20.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• MR 7.2 / KRPC 7.2 (advertising; 7.2(b) on referral services; later renumbered 7.20)

Other opinions cited:

• KBA E-429: also addresses the issues raised by this opinion

See also

• KBA Ethics Op. E-346: Prepaid Legal Plans
• KBA Ethics Op. E-358: Union Counsel Payments
• AL Ethics Op. 1991-43: For-Profit Referral Hotline

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-344.pdf

Original opinion text

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

KENTUCKY BAR ASSOCIATION
Ethics Opinion KBA E-344
Issued: March 1991

Since the adoption of the Rules of Professional Conduct in 1990, the Kentucky Supreme Court has made substantial revisions to the rules governing the advertisement of legal services. For example, this opinion refers to Rule 7.2, which was revised and renumbered as Rule 7.20. Lawyers should consult the current version of the rules and comments, SCR 3.130 (available at http://www.kybar.org) and the Attorneys' Advertising Commission Regulations, before relying on this opinion. KBA E-429 also addresses the issues raised by this opinion.

Question 1:

"May a Kentucky lawyer participate in "cooperative" advertising?

Answer 1:

Qualified Yes.

Question 2:

May a Kentucky lawyer participate in for-profit lawyer referral service?

Answer 2:

No.
OPINION

The first question is a moving target, since cooperative advertising has no certain meaning. If all that is meant is advertising paid for by a group of lawyers, then the answer must be a qualified "Yes", since it is permissible to pay for advertising. Rule 7.2. On the other hand, the Advertising Commission or other enforcement body may wish to require that one or more of the participating lawyers put their names in/on the ads. Furthermore, all lawyers will presumably bear responsibility for the content of the ads. It should also be noted that the Supreme Court has not approved of trade names, and many cooperative advertising plans appear to be efforts to operate under a trade name. In any event, this rather abstract question involves questions that are best directed to the court-appointed Advertising Commission. Question 2 must be answered "No" in light of the language of Rule 7.2(b). The Committee does not answer Constitutional questions . The Committee doe not review, screen, approve, certify, or provide legal services to the operators of or participants in advertising and referral plans. Interested lawyers must use their own judgment and participate at their own risk.
____

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.