Can a law firm hold an educational seminar for clients and non-clients, hoping it brings in business, without it counting as prohibited solicitation?
Apply this to your situation
This page answers the general question as of 1986. Ezel answers yours: whether it's allowed on your facts, under the current Massachusetts Rules of Professional Conduct, with citations.
Plain-English summary
A law firm proposed to run an educational seminar teaching laypersons to recognize legal problems in specific areas and educating other professionals, inviting both clients and non-clients and charging a registration fee treated as a partial reimbursement of costs. The firm represented that neither the brochure nor the presentation would suggest, expressly or impliedly, that attendees employ the firm or any of its lawyers. It asked whether the newly revised DR 2-103 required the mailed announcement to be labeled "advertising," retained for two years, and otherwise to comply with the rule.
The committee reaffirmed its Opinion 83-4, which had allowed a firm to give a free seminar to unions about workers' compensation law even where part of the motivation was future business, so long as there was no recommendation that the lawyer be employed for a fee. It noted the Ethical Considerations' emphasis (EC 2-2) on lawyers' duty to educate laypersons to recognize legal problems, cautioning that such programs be motivated by public benefit rather than obtaining employment for particular lawyers.
DR 2-103, as amended in 1986, replaced the former blanket ban on solicitation for a fee with a more selective one: in-person and direct solicitation remained barred, while written (mail) solicitation became permissible subject to the "advertising" label and two-year retention conditions. The committee read the amendment not to broaden what counts as "solicitation." Drawing on the SJC's accompanying opinion (In the Matter of Amendment to SJC Rule 3:07), it distinguished "solicitation" (communications directed at specific individuals or groups to obtain business) from "advertising," and concluded the SJC did not mean to treat every communication to a non-client that is partly motivated by getting business, such as a seminar invitation or a Christmas card, as solicitation. Because the seminar and brochure contained no recommendation to employ the firm, DR 2-103 did not apply, and the labeling and retention requirements were not triggered. The committee emphasized its conclusion rested on the firm's representation that neither the brochure nor the presentation would recommend employing the firm or its lawyers.
Currency note
This opinion was issued in 1986, before Massachusetts's adoption of the 2015 revisions to the Rules of Professional Conduct. 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, deadline, or requirement mentioned here.
Common questions
Q: Does an educational seminar count as solicitation if the firm hopes it brings in clients?
A: Per the opinion, no, so long as neither the seminar nor its brochure recommends that attendees employ the firm or its lawyers. The committee said partial business motivation does not by itself make an educational program solicitation.
Q: Did the firm have to label the seminar invitation "advertising" under DR 2-103?
A: No. Because the committee concluded the invitation was not solicitation, the DR 2-103 labeling and two-year retention requirements for written solicitation did not apply.
Q: What is the line between an educational program and solicitation here?
A: The presence or absence of a recommendation to hire the firm. The committee said a bona fide educational program with no suggestion of employment of the firm or its lawyers is not solicitation, and stressed its answer depended on the firm's representation that none would be made.
Background and rules framework
The opinion applied DR 2-103 (solicitation of professional employment for a fee, in the form adopted by the 1986 amendment) and distinguished it from DR 2-101 (advertising). Those correspond today to Model Rule 7.3 (solicitation of clients) and Model Rule 7.2 (advertising and communications about a lawyer's services). The committee relied on EC 2-2's encouragement of lawyer-led public legal education and on the SJC's opinion accompanying the rule amendment.
Citations and references
Rules of Professional Conduct:
- DR 2-103 / Model Rule 7.3 (solicitation of clients)
- DR 2-101 / Model Rule 7.2 (advertising and communications about services)
Cases:
- In the Matter of Amendment to SJC Rule 3:07, 398 Mass. 73 (1986) (distinguishing solicitation from advertising)
Other opinions cited:
- MBA Opinion 83-4 (reaffirmed): free educational seminar with future-business motive is permissible absent a recommendation to employ the lawyer
See also
- MA Bar Ethics Op. 87-3: A third party soliciting clients for a law firm
- MA Bar Ethics Op. 88-3: Discounted fees for union members as protected group legal services
Source
Get today's answer for your situation
You just read a 1986 opinion on this question. Ezel checks the current Massachusetts Rules of Professional Conduct and answers your specific situation, with citations.
Opens in Ezel Pro. Every answer cites the rules it relies on.